State A currently allows casino gambling while State B does not.

Question

State A currently allows casino gambling while State B does not. The legislature of State B is considering a proposal under which a limited number of casino licenses would be granted within the state in order to compete with State A for gambling revenue. Given the fact that a great many citizens of State B currently visit casinos in State A, the legislature of State B would be foolish not to enact this proposal.

In the table below, select one statement that would strengthen the proposal and another that would weaken it. Make exactly two selections, one in each column.

rocky620 · Answer

We have a plan in action in the question stem and we have to find the pros (strengthen) and cons (weaken) that would affect the outcome in the respective ways.

Result:  Increase Gambling revenue in State B.
 Plan:  Allow limited gambling licences in State B.

Possible statements 
Some other states that have granted casino licenses have subsequently experienced an overall increase in revenue...... We are specifically concerned with the result of plan, if it is implemented in State B. Other States are ofs. It would neither strengthen nor weaken.

The residents of State B who currently visit casinos in State A travel to State A primarily to visit a nature preserve that serves as a major tourist attraction...... This will WEAKEN the plan. If this is the case then even if State B allow limited gambling, it will fail to attract the visitors who visit State A, with the primary motive ti visit the nature reserve, and hence there may not be a increase in revenue because of gambling.

Currently, more State A residents than State B residents undertake international travel...... Its is completely ofs. It neither strengthens nor weakens.

Before State A offered casinos, those residents of State B who wanted to visit casinos had to travel nearly twice as far in order to do so...... This option addresses the distance factor, which may be a problem for many gamblers. It may work as a Strengthener, in absence of a strong contender. Lets hold on to it.

Most residents of State B who traveled to State A within the past year made the trip primarily to visit casinos...... Now this is a strong STRENGTHENER. We know the primary motive of State B travelers, who visit State A: i.e GAMBLING. Hence, revenue will increase if limited gambling is allowed.

Over the past five years, the gambling revenue that State A has taken in has more than offset the associated infrastructure costs associated with gambling tourism...... This option validated the fact that gambling has proven beneficial for State A. But what about State B?

Would strengthen proposal: Most residents of State B who traveled to State A within the past year made the trip primarily to visit casinos.
Would weaken proposal: The residents of State B who currently visit casinos in State A travel to State A primarily to visit a nature preserve that serves as a major tourist attraction.

sayan640 · Answer

I was considering choice E as a strengthener for awhile but then rejected it .
The conclusion is :- The legislature of State B would be foolish not to enact this proposal.
Premise :- A great many citizens of State B currently visit casinos in State A .
We need to know their actual intention. Hence choice E is kinda irrelevant. Also , what happened in state A may not happen in state B.
Kindly confirm if my reasoning is correct.
 KarishmaB   GMATinsight

Gustavoncf · Answer

I don't get it, why does knowing the citizens' intentions strengthen the conclusion?

cheshire · Answer

Yep, your reasonings good. The proposal’s only premise is that many residents of B go to A for casinos; to strengthen the argument you need evidence that they actually go for gambling, not some other attraction (choice “Most residents...made the trip primarily to visit casinos”). Choice E (“Some other states...increase in revenue”) doesn’t address whether B’s legislators will reap the same casino-driven revenue, so it fails to strengthen the link between B’s residents’ motivations and the expected benefit to B’s treasury.

cheshire · Answer

Because the argument’s only evidence is that many State B residents go to State A. But to conclude that granting B casino licenses will keep that gambling revenue in-state, you must show that those trips are actually for gambling. If, instead, they’re going to hike or visit a nature preserve, then legalizing casinos in B won’t recapture that money.

Gustavoncf

I don't get it, why does knowing the citizens' intentions strengthen the conclusion?

agrasan · Answer

Hi  DmitryFarber   MartyMurray   KarishmaB

For Strengthener, can we say that  option D   "Before State A offered casinos, those residents of State B who wanted to visit casinos had to travel nearly twice as far in order to do so"  is wrong because it is talking about the situation before State A started casinos and doesn't talk about the present situation where state A has casinos so it is unable to give us a reason why state B would benefit from starting casinos?

Please let me know if something if wrong with my reasoning.

cheshire · Answer

Pretty much, the whole reason state B wants to allow casinos is because state A receives all the revenue from gambling. Anything before the time period where state A had casinos is outside the scope of the question.

DmitryFarberMPrep · Answer

Honestly, the time frame isn't even the problem. This choice just doesn't tell us anything of value. Keep in mind that we have no idea where these states are, or how close they are to each other. Let's say we assume that other than the appearance of casinos in State A, nothing else has changed. All this tells us is that there are no nearer casinos than those in State A. It doesn't address whether people would want to stay within the state to gamble or stay in State B. For all we know, most of the travelers going to A from B aren't even traveling that far! We'd have to know quite a bit more about the situation to conclude anything from this simple statement that other gambling locations used to be far away.

sagarkacha · Answer

for strengthener i have confused between A and E because when plan work somewhere else that strength the argument that plan may work for city B as well so can we say that if option E is not there A is contender for strengthener...?

Bunuel · Answer

A does give some support, but it is much weaker than E.

E directly supports the core assumption of the argument: that people from State B are going to State A mainly because of casinos, so opening casinos in State B could realistically pull that revenue back. A is only a loose analogy: “some other states” had an “overall increase in revenue,” which may be due to other factors and does not show that State B would successfully compete with State A specifically.

State A currently allows casino gambling while State B does not.

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

Would strengthen proposal	Would weaken proposal	Possible statements
		Some other states that have granted casino licenses have subsequently experienced an overall increase in revenue.
		The residents of State B who currently visit casinos in State A travel to State A primarily to visit a nature preserve that serves as a major tourist attraction.
		Currently, more State A residents than State B residents undertake international travel.
		Before State A offered casinos, those residents of State B who wanted to visit casinos had to travel nearly twice as far in order to do so.
		Most residents of State B who traveled to State A within the past year made the trip primarily to visit casinos.
		Over the past five years, the gambling revenue that State A has taken in has more than offset the associated infrastructure costs associated with gambling tourism.

GMAT Two-part Analysis (TPA) Questions

State A currently allows casino gambling while State B does not.

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