It is currently 17 Dec 2017, 23:19

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 15 Mar 2013
Posts: 61

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 11

Reviews Badge
Re: The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 Mar 2013, 01:36
Yes I have verified the above, and the correct answer should be D and not anything else.

Please follow the following explanation:-

Exactly the correct answer should be D. and not anything else.

Option A:- Does not affect the argument.Also, in extreme it weakens the propreitors' stance as when the restaurant visitation was low it had a increase of 50% in profits, then with normal visitation it would increase even further.

Option B:- Abslolutely does not affect the argument.

Option C:- Weakens the restaurant propreitor's claim as not the restrictions but something else decreased the profits and revenues.

Option E:- Does not affect the argument at all as nowhere the argument says that the profits or the revenues should increase at a substantial rate. Even a slight increase in profits can weaken the argument.

Option D:- Strengthens the argument.


Also, The premise is about X: RESTRICTING the sale of alcoholic beverages in several provinces did not hurt restaurants.
The conclusion is about Y: BANNING the sale of alcoholic beverages in Prohibitionland will not hurt restaurants.
BANNING ≠ RESTRICTING. Restricting does not mean a complete ban or completely banning the alcoholic beverages.

The proprietors disagree with the conclusion here.
To support the proprietors' position, the correct answer must show why BANNING the sale of alcohol would have a more negative impact than simply RESTRICTING the sale of alcohol.

D: The restrictions on alcoholic beverages enacted last year allowed for the service of drinks beginning around dinnertime each evening.
Thus, the RESTRICTIONS did not hurt sales because the restaurants were still able to sell alcohol all evening, when alcohol is typically purchased.
Thus, the proprietors' claim that BANNING the sale of alcohol would reduce revenues and profits is strengthened.

Hope this helps.

Thanks.
_________________

'The best way to thank or appreciate efforts on this forum is to give Kudos.'

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 11

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 29 Mar 2013
Posts: 3

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 2

Re: The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 Mar 2013, 11:14
Its a clear D

As per 'E' -- we have problems in each of the 2 possible cases

E. Overall sales tax revenue did not increase at a substantially higher rate in the provinces that enacted the restrictions on alcoholic beverages than in the rest of Prohibitionland last year.

1) Overall sales tax -- If this means sales tax of all the products -- in this case this option does not have any impact on the argument.
2) Overall sales tax -- if this means sales tax from only alcohol -- in this case we can't actually compare 2 provinces. This is because --
provinces that enacted restrictions may have less number of restaurants/outlets that sell alcohol and provinces that have not enacted restrictions may have more restaurants/outlets that sell alcohol.
This is a classic mix-up of numbers and percentages.
So the answer can't be E in each of the cases above.

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 2

Intern
Intern
avatar
Status: RusTinPeace
Joined: 11 Aug 2012
Posts: 35

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 43

WE: Sales (Commercial Banking)
Re: The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 05 Jun 2013, 12:46
somehow i don't find D convincing, could somebody tell me a solid reason for D ?


Edited :oops: found the explainations in later posts. Thanks

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 43

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 14 Nov 2008
Posts: 66

Kudos [?]: 27 [0], given: 1

Re: The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Sep 2013, 10:07
The argument concerns the economic impact on restaurants in Prohibitionland if
the service of alcoholic beverages is banned. It presents evidence that, despite
restrictions on the service of alcohol in certain areas of Prohibitionland, sales
taxes in restaurants in those areas rose at a higher rate than for those in other
parts of Prohibitionland, suggesting that the ban would not have any adverse
economic impact. We are asked to support the restaurant proprietors' claim , so
the correct answer choice will call the relevance of the seemingly contradictory
evidence into question.
(A). This answer choice may seem to strengthen the argument that banning the
service of alcoholic beverages would have an adverse impact on restaurants.
However, as the evidence involves data for the entire year, citing a short-term
negative impact on restaurant visitation at the beginning of the year does not
measurably strengthen the argument.
(B) The relative tax rate on food and beverages as compared to other consumer
good is irrelevant here.
(C) A gradual decline in alcohol consumption over the past 20 years would
suggest that over time, any ban on alcohol would have an increasingly small
impact on restaurant visitation, weakening the proprietors’ argument.
(D) CORRECT. This statement calls the evidence into question by indicating that
any measured increase in sales taxes and, presumably, revenues for restaurants
that have been operating under the restrictions last year enacted is irrelevant, as
the restrictions could be argued to be completely different than the total ban that
is being proposed. This answer choice substantially strengthens the proprietors’
argument by threatening to make the cited evidence irrelevant.
(E) The fact that overall sales tax revenue did not increase at a higher rate in the
provinces that enacted the restrictions on alcoholic beverages weakens the
proprietors’ argument, as it makes the cited evidence more compelling by ruling
out the possibility of different growth rates in the different areas.

Kudos [?]: 27 [0], given: 1

Non-Human User
User avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10222

Kudos [?]: 277 [0], given: 0

Premium Member
Re: The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Jan 2014, 01:18
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Kudos [?]: 277 [0], given: 0

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 24 Oct 2013
Posts: 173

Kudos [?]: 49 [0], given: 83

Location: Canada
Schools: LBS '18
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V38
WE: Design (Transportation)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Apr 2014, 15:28
D kinda weakens it. Because restaurants selling alcohol all day have 30% increase and restaurants selling alcohol only around dinnertime have 50% increase. So this weakens the proprietor's support.

Kudos [?]: 49 [0], given: 83

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 03 May 2013
Posts: 353

Kudos [?]: 154 [0], given: 70

Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Human Resources
Schools: XLRI GM"18
GPA: 4
WE: Human Resources (Human Resources)
Re: The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Apr 2014, 01:56
applecrisp wrote:
The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the service of alcoholic beverages in restaurants to curb unruly behavior on the part of its residents. Proprietors of restaurants in Prohibitionland are protesting the ban on the grounds that it will reduce their revenues and profits. However, several provinces in Prohibitionland enacted restrictions on alcoholic beverages last year, and the sales taxes paid by the restaurants in those provinces rose by an average of 50 percent. In contrast, the sales taxes paid by restaurants located in areas of Prohibitionland that did not have any restrictions rose by an average of 30 percent.

Which of the following, if true, supports the restaurant proprietors’ economic stance against the ban?

In the provinces that restricted alcoholic beverages, there was a short-term negative impact on restaurant visitation in the beginning of last year.

The sales tax in Prohibitionland is lower on food and beverages than it is on other consumer goods, such as clothing.

The consumption of alcoholic beverages in Prohibitionland has been on a gradual decline the last 20 years.

The restrictions on alcoholic beverages enacted last year allowed for the service of drinks beginning around dinnertime each evening.

Overall sales tax revenue did not increase at a substantially higher rate in the provinces that enacted the restrictions on alcoholic beverages than in the rest of Prohibitionland last year.


CONTENDERS ARE ''D" AND ''E''.
D- IT SHOWS THAT ACTUALLY THERE WAS NO RESTRICTION ON LIQUOR AND HENCE THE ENHANCED REVENUE GENERATION WAS POSSIBLY DUE TO IT ie 50%

E- WE ARE CONCERNED WITH SALES TAX EFFECT ON RESTAURENTS NOT OVER ALL SALES TAX REVENUE



ANS = "D".....


KUDOS IF YOU PLEASE...................

Kudos [?]: 154 [0], given: 70

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 24 Oct 2013
Posts: 173

Kudos [?]: 49 [0], given: 83

Location: Canada
Schools: LBS '18
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V38
WE: Design (Transportation)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Apr 2014, 04:31
semwal wrote:
applecrisp wrote:
The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the service of alcoholic beverages in restaurants to curb unruly behavior on the part of its residents. Proprietors of restaurants in Prohibitionland are protesting the ban on the grounds that it will reduce their revenues and profits. However, several provinces in Prohibitionland enacted restrictions on alcoholic beverages last year, and the sales taxes paid by the restaurants in those provinces rose by an average of 50 percent. In contrast, the sales taxes paid by restaurants located in areas of Prohibitionland that did not have any restrictions rose by an average of 30 percent.

Which of the following, if true, supports the restaurant proprietors’ economic stance against the ban?

In the provinces that restricted alcoholic beverages, there was a short-term negative impact on restaurant visitation in the beginning of last year.

The sales tax in Prohibitionland is lower on food and beverages than it is on other consumer goods, such as clothing.

The consumption of alcoholic beverages in Prohibitionland has been on a gradual decline the last 20 years.

The restrictions on alcoholic beverages enacted last year allowed for the service of drinks beginning around dinnertime each evening.

Overall sales tax revenue did not increase at a substantially higher rate in the provinces that enacted the restrictions on alcoholic beverages than in the rest of Prohibitionland last year.


CONTENDERS ARE ''D" AND ''E''.
D- IT SHOWS THAT ACTUALLY THERE WAS NO RESTRICTION ON LIQUOR AND HENCE THE ENHANCED REVENUE GENERATION WAS POSSIBLY DUE TO IT ie 50%

E- WE ARE CONCERNED WITH SALES TAX EFFECT ON RESTAURENTS NOT OVER ALL SALES TAX REVENUE



ANS = "D".....


KUDOS IF YOU PLEASE...................


D kinda weakens it. Because restaurants selling alcohol all day have 30% increase and restaurants selling alcohol only around dinnertime have 50% increase. So this weakens the proprietor's support.

Kudos [?]: 49 [0], given: 83

Current Student
User avatar
Status: Everyone is a leader. Just stop listening to others.
Joined: 22 Mar 2013
Posts: 954

Kudos [?]: 1940 [0], given: 229

Location: India
GPA: 3.51
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Apr 2014, 04:46
IMO A.
Proprietors claim that their revenue will decrease and only option A is talking about decrease in customers visit even if it is short term but it goes along with proprietors claim. For increase in sales tax underlying cause could be anything, option D does not prove anything.
_________________

Piyush K
-----------------------
Our greatest weakness lies in giving up. The most certain way to succeed is to try just one more time. ― Thomas A. Edison
Don't forget to press--> Kudos :)
My Articles: 1. WOULD: when to use? | 2. All GMATPrep RCs (New)
Tip: Before exam a week earlier don't forget to exhaust all gmatprep problems specially for "sentence correction".

Kudos [?]: 1940 [0], given: 229

Expert Post
1 KUDOS received
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 7799

Kudos [?]: 18155 [1], given: 236

Location: Pune, India
Re: The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Apr 2014, 05:20
1
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
PiyushK wrote:
IMO A.
Proprietors claim that their revenue will decrease and only option A is talking about decrease in customers visit even if it is short term but it goes along with proprietors claim. For increase in sales tax underlying cause could be anything, option D does not prove anything.


Actually (A) is not correct. Short term negative impact does not strengthen proprietors’ stance because the argument clearly mentions that in the entire year (last year), the sales taxes and hence presumably the revenue rose by 50%. So even if there is some negative impact in the beg, overall impact is much more positive and hence proprietors’ fear of lesser revenue seems to be baseless.

We need an option which strengthens proprietors’ stance that prohibition will decrease revenue.

Option (D) doesn't really strengthen the proprietors’ stance directly but it opposes data given in the argument to weaken the proprietors’ stance. The argument tries to convince you that proprietors are worried for no reason since restrictions were not able to reduce revenue last year. Option (D) tells you that the restrictions were not bans but just time restrictions and hence that situation is not comparable to this. Hence options (D) weakens the relevance of data given to weaken proprietors’ stance. In that sense, it strengthens the proprietors’ stance. It's "enemy's enemy is a friend" situation. The reason it works is that there is no better option.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for $199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Kudos [?]: 18155 [1], given: 236

Current Student
User avatar
Status: Everyone is a leader. Just stop listening to others.
Joined: 22 Mar 2013
Posts: 954

Kudos [?]: 1940 [0], given: 229

Location: India
GPA: 3.51
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Apr 2014, 05:34
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
PiyushK wrote:
IMO A.
Proprietors claim that their revenue will decrease and only option A is talking about decrease in customers visit even if it is short term but it goes along with proprietors claim. For increase in sales tax underlying cause could be anything, option D does not prove anything.


Actually (A) is not correct. Short term negative impact does not strengthen proprietors’ stance because the argument clearly mentions that in the entire year (last year), the sales taxes and hence presumably the revenue rose by 50%. So even if there is some negative impact in the beg, overall impact is much more positive and hence proprietors’ fear of lesser revenue seems to be baseless.

We need an option which strengthens proprietors’ stance that prohibition will decrease revenue.

Option (D) doesn't really strengthen the proprietors’ stance directly but it opposes data given in the argument to weaken the proprietors’ stance. The argument tries to convince you that proprietors are worried for no reason since restrictions were not able to reduce revenue last year. Option (D) tells you that the restrictions were not bans but just time restrictions and hence that situation is not comparable to this. Hence options (D) weakens the relevance of data given to weaken proprietors’ stance. In that sense, it strengthens the proprietors’ stance. It's "enemy's enemy is a friend" situation. The reason it works is that there is no better option.


Thanks for the wonderful explanation.
I was considering banning = restriction.
I thought last year also they banned the alcohol, but it was just a restriction. :idea:
_________________

Piyush K
-----------------------
Our greatest weakness lies in giving up. The most certain way to succeed is to try just one more time. ― Thomas A. Edison
Don't forget to press--> Kudos :)
My Articles: 1. WOULD: when to use? | 2. All GMATPrep RCs (New)
Tip: Before exam a week earlier don't forget to exhaust all gmatprep problems specially for "sentence correction".

Kudos [?]: 1940 [0], given: 229

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 10 Mar 2014
Posts: 19

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 14

Location: United States
Concentration: General Management, Finance
GMAT 1: 680 Q46 V38
GPA: 3
WE: Programming (Computer Software)
Re: The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Apr 2014, 22:55
Good question! The key is the difference between restriction and ban. Something that I missed when I picked E. The correct answer is D for sure.

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 14

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 21 Jul 2014
Posts: 69

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 58

Location: United States
WE: Project Management (Non-Profit and Government)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Jul 2014, 12:07
Here the question is about the ban which is complete & not allowing any sales to happen in prohibition land.

The argument pattern is Analogy between the last years data on sales tax & this years proposed ban.

In analogy patterns we always know to find something that is different in the two entities compared & it is in this case is the type of Ban. Last year it was mere restrictions allowing sale of liquor which still had a chance for restaurants while this year its a complete ban on all the sale.

hence D is absolutely the correctly answer.

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 58

Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 07 Aug 2011
Posts: 579

Kudos [?]: 574 [0], given: 75

Concentration: International Business, Technology
GMAT 1: 630 Q49 V27
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Apr 2015, 01:26
jatinrai wrote:
snaps wrote:
Quote:
The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the service of alcoholic beverages in restaurants to curb unruly behavior on the part of its residents. Proprietors of restaurants in Prohibitionland are protesting the ban on the grounds that it will reduce their revenues and profits. However, several provinces in Prohibitionland enacted restrictions on alcoholic beverages last year, and the sales taxes paid by the restaurants in those provinces rose by an average of 50 percent. In contrast, the sales taxes paid by restaurants located in areas of Prohibitionland that did not have any restrictions rose by an average of 30 percent.

Which of the following, if true, supports the restaurant proprietors' economic stance against the ban?

A. In the provinces that restricted alcoholic beverages, there was a short-term negative impact on restaurant visitation in the beginning of last year.

B. The sales tax in Prohibitionland is lower on food and beverages than it is on other consumer goods, such as clothing.

C. The consumption of alcoholic beverages in Prohibitionland has been on a gradual decline the last 20 years.

D. The restrictions on alcoholic beverages enacted last year allowed for the service of drinks beginning around dinnertime each evening.

E. Overall sales tax revenue did not increase at a substantially higher rate in the provinces that enacted the restrictions on alcoholic beverages than in the rest of Prohibitionland last year.



Extracting info from the passage:

-----
People: lets ban alcohol in bars
Bar owners: No, will reduce our revenues!
People use example to support their claim: restrictions were implemented in some provinces -> revenues up!

Support bar owners claim.
----

How to support owners? Fight the evidence (the People’s example) used!

Couple things I note while reading the passage:
1. People propose a “ban” but use "restrictions" in their example. Do the terms mean the same thing?
2. Even with restrictions bar’s revenues increased!

The only question in my mind by now is does “restrictions”=”full restrictions” i.e. ban?

Because if restrictions are “full” (i.e. no alcohol is sold) but revenues increased than Bar Owners have nothing to worry about should ok the ban and expect revenue growth. However, if restrictions are *partial* (say only 2 hours/day alcohol sale is permitted) then the evidence People use to support their claim (2 hrs/day alcohol sales but revenues show increase) will definitely show that alcohol sales make $$$ and by implementing the ban this dollar stream will be gone!

Now, D tells us that alcohol was sold couple hours per day i.e. the restrictions do not equal to ban!

Please answer is E.
You've raised the sales tax by 50% in provinces where there is ban & still the revenues from the tax have not risen. This clearly implies that your sales have fallen. This is what the owners had been cribbing about.

Man you are still discussing even after 1 year!!! When do you plan to post the OA.

LOl
_________________

Thanks,
Lucky

_______________________________________________________
Kindly press the Image to appreciate my post !! :-)

Kudos [?]: 574 [0], given: 75

Expert Post
MBA Section Director
User avatar
D
Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Posts: 4745

Kudos [?]: 18148 [0], given: 1992

Location: India
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Marketing (Non-Profit and Government)
Re: The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 05 Apr 2015, 20:10
consider ban serving alcohol in restaurants
b/c want to stop bad behavior
restaurant owners don't want to
b/c they say it will reduce revenues and profits
BUT last year some provinces did enact restrictions (just restrictions though - maybe not an outright ban, as is being considered above?)
result: those restaurants that did have the restrictions paid 50% more in sales tax after the restrictions were put in place (implication: so they were selling a lot anyway?)
restaurants that didn't have restrictions only had sales tax increase of 30% (implication: so their business didn't grow as much as the ones that did have the restriction? So the restaurant owners who don't want the ban should actually want it b/c somehow it will help business? By the way, maybe the reason the other group pulled in more sales taxes was because the tax rate went up, not because they sold more.)

The stuff in parentheses above = my own thoughts as I read the argument, based on what the author is saying. That stuff is not stated in the argument.

What supports the people who don't want the alcohol ban?
- Right now, the author is claiming that the areas with restrictions (last year) actually did better than the areas without restrictions; by that reasoning, the restaurant owners should want the ban. So somehow we have to tear down the idea that the ban would be better for the restaurants, not worse.

(A) at the beginning of the year, there was a negative impact based on the restrictions, but it was only short-term.
- this doesn't help the restaurant owners to make the case that there shouldn't be a ban - the negative effects were only short-term

(B) Sales tax on other consumer goods = out of scope. We're trying to figure out whether an alcohol ban will hurt business for restaurants.

(C) fewer people are drinking alcohol
- If not many people drink it, then the restaurant owners wouldn't care as much about banning it.

(D) restrictions last year still allowed alcohol to be served at dinner and at night
- oh, so the restrictions last year weren't an outright ban? Then dismissing the problem by saying the restrictions didn't hurt business means nothing - a ban is a much more extreme situation. Maybe most people drink at night and that's why last year's restrictions didn't hurt business, but it would hurt business greatly from now on if people can't drink at night.

(E) the restriction areas didn't suddenly have the sales tax rate increase a lot last year compared to the non-restriction areas.
- so the discrepancy in sales tax revenues wasn't due to any disparity in sales tax rates in the region. It was about equal for both. That still leaves the author's claim that the restricted areas did better than the non-restricted areas, so why are the restaurant owners complaining about a ban?
_________________

My GMAT Resources
V30-V40: How to do it! | GMATPrep SC | GMATPrep CR | GMATPrep RC | Critical Reasoning Megathread | CR: Numbers and Statistics | CR: Weaken | CR: Strengthen | CR: Assumption | SC: Modifier | SC: Meaning | SC: SV Agreement | RC: Primary Purpose | PS/DS: Numbers and Inequalities | PS/DS: Combinatorics and Coordinates

My MBA Resources
Everything about the MBA Application | Over-Represented MBA woes | Fit Vs Rankings | Low GPA: What you can do | Letter of Recommendation: The Guide | Indian B Schools accepting GMAT score | Why MBA?

My Reviews
Veritas Prep Live Online

Kudos [?]: 18148 [0], given: 1992

Non-Human User
User avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10222

Kudos [?]: 277 [0], given: 0

Premium Member
Re: The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Apr 2015, 23:01
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Kudos [?]: 277 [0], given: 0

Expert Post
MBA Section Director
User avatar
D
Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Posts: 4745

Kudos [?]: 18148 [0], given: 1992

Location: India
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Marketing (Non-Profit and Government)
Re: The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Jan 2016, 09:04
Expert's post
5
This post was
BOOKMARKED
The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the service of alcoholic beverages in restaurants to curb unruly behavior on the part of its residents. Proprietors of restaurants in Prohibitionland are protesting the ban on the grounds that it will reduce their revenues and profits. However, several provinces in Prohibitionland enacted
restrictions on alcoholic beverages last year, and the sales taxes paid by the restaurants in those provinces rose by an average of 50 percent. In contrast, the sales taxes paid by restaurants located in areas of Prohibitionland that did not have any restrictions rose by an average of 30 percent.

Which of the following, if true, supports the restaurant proprietors’ economic stance against the ban?

A. In the provinces that restricted alcoholic beverages, there was a short-term negative impact on restaurant visitation in the beginning of last year.

B. The sales tax in Prohibitionland is lower on food and beverages than it is on other consumer goods, such as clothing.

C. The consumption of alcoholic beverages in Prohibitionland has been on a gradual decline the last 20 years.

D. The restrictions on alcoholic beverages enacted last year allowed for the service of drinks beginning around dinnertime each evening.

E. Overall sales tax revenue did not increase at a substantially higher rate in the provinces that enacted the restrictions on alcoholic beverages than in the rest of Prohibitionland last year.
_________________

My GMAT Resources
V30-V40: How to do it! | GMATPrep SC | GMATPrep CR | GMATPrep RC | Critical Reasoning Megathread | CR: Numbers and Statistics | CR: Weaken | CR: Strengthen | CR: Assumption | SC: Modifier | SC: Meaning | SC: SV Agreement | RC: Primary Purpose | PS/DS: Numbers and Inequalities | PS/DS: Combinatorics and Coordinates

My MBA Resources
Everything about the MBA Application | Over-Represented MBA woes | Fit Vs Rankings | Low GPA: What you can do | Letter of Recommendation: The Guide | Indian B Schools accepting GMAT score | Why MBA?

My Reviews
Veritas Prep Live Online

Kudos [?]: 18148 [0], given: 1992

Current Student
User avatar
Joined: 17 Oct 2015
Posts: 30

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 433

Concentration: Technology, Leadership
Re: The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 Jan 2016, 10:51
The source of this question is MGMAT, not GMAT Prep... and has at least 4 other topics about the same question.

the-people-of-prohibitionland-are-considering-banning-the-139653.html?fl=similar

souvik101990 wrote:
The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the service of alcoholic beverages in restaurants to curb unruly behavior on the part of its residents. Proprietors of restaurants in Prohibitionland are protesting the ban on the grounds that it will reduce their revenues and profits. However, several provinces in Prohibitionland enacted
restrictions on alcoholic beverages last year, and the sales taxes paid by the restaurants in those provinces rose by an average of 50 percent. In contrast, the sales taxes paid by restaurants located in areas of Prohibitionland that did not have any restrictions rose by an average of 30 percent.

Which of the following, if true, supports the restaurant proprietors’ economic stance against the ban?

A. In the provinces that restricted alcoholic beverages, there was a short-term negative impact on restaurant visitation in the beginning of last year.

B. The sales tax in Prohibitionland is lower on food and beverages than it is on other consumer goods, such as clothing.

C. The consumption of alcoholic beverages in Prohibitionland has been on a gradual decline the last 20 years.

D. The restrictions on alcoholic beverages enacted last year allowed for the service of drinks beginning around dinnertime each evening.

E. Overall sales tax revenue did not increase at a substantially higher rate in the provinces that enacted the restrictions on alcoholic beverages than in the rest of Prohibitionland last year.

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 433

Non-Human User
User avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10222

Kudos [?]: 277 [0], given: 0

Premium Member
Re: The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Jul 2016, 00:15
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Kudos [?]: 277 [0], given: 0

Non-Human User
User avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10222

Kudos [?]: 277 [0], given: 0

Premium Member
Re: The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Aug 2016, 02:35
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Kudos [?]: 277 [0], given: 0

Re: The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the   [#permalink] 25 Aug 2016, 02:35

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3   4    Next  [ 65 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.