Ten years ago, the Salisbury City Council passed the Culinary Bill, ne

Question

Ten years ago, the Salisbury City Council passed the Culinary Bill, new legislation to protect the interests of local non-franchise restaurants. Of the 120 local non-franchise restaurants in Salisbury today, 85 opened during the last ten years. Clearly the Culinary Bill has caused a surge in the number of local non-franchise restaurants operating in Salisbury over the past ten years.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

(A) The Culinary Bill provides no benefit to restaurants that are members of national franchise chains

(B) Most of the consumers in Salisbury who patronize these local restaurants are aware of the provisions of the Culinary Bill and approve of them.

(C) All economic indicators suggest that household incomes in Salisbury have risen substantially over the past ten years.

(D) Of the local non-franchise restaurants in Salisbury ten years ago, fewer than 85 have closed.

(E) Similar legislation in similar sized cities across the country has, in most cases, led to an increase in the number of local non-franchise restaurants.

mainbhiankit · Answer

I think the correct answer here is option D.

The simplest way to solve assumption questions is to check whether the reverse of an assumption weakens the argument (also called the negation technique).

Step 1: Identify the conclusion.

the Culinary Bill has caused a surge in the number of local non-franchise restaurants operating in Salisbury over the past ten years

Step 2: Invert the options mentally and analyse

A)  The Culinary Bill provides some benefits to restaurants that are members of national franchise chains  = it strengthens the conclusion. Option A is out.

B)  Most of the consumers in Salisbury who patronize these local restaurants are aware of the provisions of the Culinary Bill and approve of them  = I don't really understand how this has any impact on the conclusion, tbh. Option B is out, too.

C)  All economic indicators suggest that household incomes in Salisbury have not risen substantially over the past ten years  = So what? This is unrelated to our conclusion just like B was. Begone, option C!

D)  Of the local non-franchise restaurants in Salisbury ten years ago, more than 85 have closed  = This weakens our conclusion as the net number of local non-franchise restaurants in Salisbury has reduced. Option D is the winner here.

E)  Similar legislation in similar-sized cities across the country has, in most cases, did not lead to an increase in the number of local non-franchise restaurants  = This somewhat weakens the conclusion, I guess. Although, notice how the reverse of option E states that similar legislation did not lead to an increase in the number of local non-franchise restaurants. It can be the same for all we know. But the reverse of option D states a clear reduction. Hence, option E is out, too.

D is the correct answer.

alphastallion · Answer

I think option is E IMHO,Because "Similar legislation in similar-sized cities across the country has, in most cases, did not lead to an increase in the number of local non-franchise restaurants".It gives the justification for the reason why non franchise restaurants increase,

Bunuel · Answer

Official Explanation

For an assumption, we can use the Negation Test. The credited answer is (D). Let's consider the opposite of (D)—suppose more than 85 local non-franchise restaurants closed in Salisbury over the last ten years. Well, we know from the prompt that 85 new one opened, so if more closed than opened, then we couldn't say that there was a surge in their numbers over the past ten years. Negating (D) destroys the argument, which indicates that (D) is an assumption of the argument.

The entire argument is about local non-franchise restaurants, so national franchise restaurants are not directly relevant. If the Culinary Bill benefits local non-franchise restaurants and provide no benefit to national franchise restaurants, that vaguely suggest the former will prosper, but not necessarily. This doesn't have clear, unambiguous implication for the argument. Choice (A) is incorrect.

Protecting the interests of restaurants may well have to do with tax breaks, incentive programs, insurance rules, etc.—all things of which a typical restaurant patron might be totally uninformed. When the patrons know about these provisions is irrelevant. Choice (B) is incorrect.

Choice (C) is suggestive at best. If household income rises, does that mean that folks will eat at local non-franchise restaurants in Salisbury, as opposed to national franchise restaurants or local non-franchise restaurants in a neighboring town? We don't know, so we can't draw a definitive link. Choice (C) is incorrect.

The fact that similar legislation has worked elsewhere is suggestive, but it doesn't necessarily mean it would work the same way in Salisbury. From the prompt, we have no way to determine whether Salisbury would follow a national pattern or be an exception. Choice (E) is incorrect.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

Ten years ago, the Salisbury City Council passed the Culinary Bill, ne

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Ten years ago, the Salisbury City Council passed the Culinary Bill, ne

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards