GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 21 Aug 2019, 05:07

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

Vorland s government is planning a nationwide ban on smoking

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

Hide Tags

Find Similar Topics 
BSchool Thread Master
User avatar
Joined: 28 May 2012
Posts: 98
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GPA: 3.33
WE: Information Technology (Retail)
Vorland s government is planning a nationwide ban on smoking  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 06 Jun 2019, 05:40
3
1
32
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  85% (hard)

Question Stats:

59% (02:17) correct 41% (02:36) wrong based on 1013 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Vorland’s government is planning a nationwide ban on smoking in restaurants. The objection that the ban would reduce restaurants’ revenues is ill founded. Several towns in Vorland enacted restaurant smoking restrictions five years ago. Since then, the amount the government collects in restaurant meal taxes in those towns has increased 34 percent, on average, but only 26 percent elsewhere in Vorland. The amount collected in restaurant meal taxes closely reflects restaurants’ revenues.

Which of the following, if true, most undermines the defense of the government’s plan?


(A) When the state first imposed a restaurant meal tax, opponents predicted that restaurants’ revenues would decline as a result, a prediction that proved to be correct in the short term.
(B) The tax on meals in restaurants is higher than the tax on many other goods and services.
(C) Over the last five years, smoking has steadily declined throughout Vorland.
(D) In many of the towns that restrict smoking in restaurants, restaurants can maintain separate dining areas where smoking is permitted.
(E) Over the last five years, government revenues from sales taxes have grown no faster in the towns with restaurant smoking restrictions than in the towns that have no such restrictions.

_________________
You want something, go get it . Period !

Originally posted by ankit0411 on 15 Sep 2012, 09:22.
Last edited by hazelnut on 06 Jun 2019, 05:40, edited 2 times in total.
Formatted
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 28 Jun 2009
Posts: 361
Location: United States (MA)
Re: Vorland s government is planning a nationwide ban on smoking  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Sep 2012, 11:33
2
1
D is the right one.

Conclusion : The objection that the ban would reduce restaurants’ revenues is ill founded. >> Ban would not reduce revenues
Defence: Other towns where restaurants ban smoking show incresed revenue

To undermine the defence, we need to either show that the restuarents where smoking is banned have other resons for increased revenue OR Smoking is still permitted somehow.

Lets look at the answer choices:

A. When the state first imposed a restaurant meal tax, opponents predicted that restaurants’ revenues would decline as a result, a prediction that proved to be
correct in the short term. >>> Talks about mean tax. Out of scope.
B. The tax on meals in restaurants is higher than the tax on many other goods and services. >>> Out of scope
C. Over the last five years, smoking has steadily declined throughout Vorland. >>> Out of scope
D. In many of the towns that restrict smoking in restaurants, restaurants can maintain separate dining areas where smoking is permitted. >>> Smoking is allowed, but under restrictions. Bingo! Answer!
E. Over the last five years, government revenues from sales taxes have grown no faster in the towns with restaurant smoking restrictions than in the towns that have no such restrictions. >>> talks about same growth rate of sales taxes. Not adding any value.
BSchool Thread Master
User avatar
Joined: 28 May 2012
Posts: 98
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GPA: 3.33
WE: Information Technology (Retail)
Re: Vorland s government is planning a nationwide ban on smoking  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Sep 2012, 12:41
1
1
piyatiwari wrote:
D is the right one.

Conclusion : The objection that the ban would reduce restaurants’ revenues is ill founded. >> Ban would not reduce revenues
Defence: Other towns where restaurants ban smoking show incresed revenue

To undermine the defence, we need to either show that the restuarents where smoking is banned have other resons for increased revenue OR Smoking is still permitted somehow.

Lets look at the answer choices:

A. When the state first imposed a restaurant meal tax, opponents predicted that restaurants’ revenues would decline as a result, a prediction that proved to be
correct in the short term. >>> Talks about mean tax. Out of scope.
B. The tax on meals in restaurants is higher than the tax on many other goods and services. >>> Out of scope
C. Over the last five years, smoking has steadily declined throughout Vorland. >>> Out of scope
D. In many of the towns that restrict smoking in restaurants, restaurants can maintain separate dining areas where smoking is permitted. >>> Smoking is allowed, but under restrictions. Bingo! Answer!
E. Over the last five years, government revenues from sales taxes have grown no faster in the towns with restaurant smoking restrictions than in the towns that have no such restrictions. >>> talks about same growth rate of sales taxes. Not adding any value.



Yea, I think I get it the other way .

Govt thinks that the ban is the reason for increased revenue ( that means smoking does not play any part in the revenue ).

To undermine this we come to D , which says smoking is allowed ( under restrictions) and this might be the cause to lure more customers .
_________________
You want something, go get it . Period !
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Posts: 14
Concentration: Finance, General Management
GMAT Date: 03-05-2013
GPA: 3.79
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Vorland s government is planning a nationwide ban on smoking  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Mar 2014, 09:33
ankit0411 wrote:
piyatiwari wrote:
D is the right one.

Conclusion : The objection that the ban would reduce restaurants’ revenues is ill founded. >> Ban would not reduce revenues
Defence: Other towns where restaurants ban smoking show incresed revenue

To undermine the defence, we need to either show that the restuarents where smoking is banned have other resons for increased revenue OR Smoking is still permitted somehow.

Lets look at the answer choices:

A. When the state first imposed a restaurant meal tax, opponents predicted that restaurants’ revenues would decline as a result, a prediction that proved to be
correct in the short term. >>> Talks about mean tax. Out of scope.
B. The tax on meals in restaurants is higher than the tax on many other goods and services. >>> Out of scope
C. Over the last five years, smoking has steadily declined throughout Vorland. >>> Out of scope
D. In many of the towns that restrict smoking in restaurants, restaurants can maintain separate dining areas where smoking is permitted. >>> Smoking is allowed, but under restrictions. Bingo! Answer!
E. Over the last five years, government revenues from sales taxes have grown no faster in the towns with restaurant smoking restrictions than in the towns that have no such restrictions. >>> talks about same growth rate of sales taxes. Not adding any value.



Yea, I think I get it the other way .

Govt thinks that the ban is the reason for increased revenue ( that means smoking does not play any part in the revenue ).

To undermine this we come to D , which says smoking is allowed ( under restrictions) and this might be the cause to lure more customers .


I am thinking the following way. The passage argues, by giving evidence, against the objection that the plan would decrease restaurant revenues. We are looking for an answer that undermines the argument. A potential answer could state that the revenues in certain town didn't increase due to smoking restrictions.

Answer D - Provides that restaurants can have have separate dining areas, one where smoking is allowed, and one where it's not. This means that these restaurants will attract both smokers and non-smokers, thus increasing the revenues.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 04 Sep 2012
Posts: 50
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
Schools: IMD '17 (M)
GMAT 1: 690 Q49 V35
WE: Brand Management (Consumer Products)
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Vorland s government is planning a nationwide ban on smoking  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Oct 2014, 02:30
1
Let's try to simplify the question.

Conclusion: Smoking ban did not decrease revenues of restaurants
Support: in towns where smoking is banned, meal taxes are higher

So basically we need to find an answer that weakens the argument

A. When the state first imposed a restaurant meal tax, opponents predicted that restaurants’ revenues would decline as a result, a prediction that proved to be correct in the short term.
The argument has nothing to do with opponents, clearly out of scope
B. The tax on meals in restaurants is higher than the tax on many other goods and services.
Out of scope; even if the tax on meals are higher, it does not have any affect on the conclusion
C. Over the last five years, smoking has steadily declined throughout Vorland.
Out of scope
D. In many of the towns that restrict smoking in restaurants, restaurants can maintain separate dining areas where smoking is permitted.
Correct. Restaurants can still maintain a separate dining area to serve smokers. So if today these restaurants are not allowed to have such separate areas to serve these smokers then revenue will definitely be affected
E. Over the last five years, government revenues from sales taxes have grown no faster in the towns with restaurant smoking restrictions than in the towns that have no such restrictions
out of scope, we are not concerned about "sales tax"
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
G
Joined: 24 Nov 2015
Posts: 495
Location: United States (LA)
Reviews Badge
Re: Vorland s government is planning a nationwide ban on smoking  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Jul 2016, 15:29
options A,B and C are out of scope options
option E provides information which is not of much importance to the conclusion of the argument
option D is the clear weakener as it exposes the fact that smoking is still permitted somehow and not completely banned as the government intends to do
correct answer - D
Current Student
avatar
S
Status: MBA Candidate Class of 2020
Joined: 10 Jan 2016
Posts: 107
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Strategy
GMAT 1: 620 Q47 V29
GMAT 2: 670 Q50 V31
GPA: 4
WE: Business Development (Consulting)
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Vorland s government is planning a nationwide ban on smoking  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Jul 2017, 08:37
In option D it says restaurants can maintain. So it looks like a suggestion not a statement.
Am I getting it wrong ?
CR & LSAT Forum Moderator
User avatar
V
Status: He came. He saw. He conquered. -- Studying for the LSAT -- Corruptus in Extremis
Joined: 31 Jul 2017
Posts: 716
Location: United States (MA)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
Reviews Badge
Re: Vorland s government is planning a nationwide ban on smoking  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Sep 2017, 05:18
somtsat99 wrote:
In option D it says restaurants can maintain. So it looks like a suggestion not a statement.
Am I getting it wrong ?


Hi somtsat99,

You are not wrong! The question, stated below, says that restaurants have the option to keep smoking. If this is true, then a restaurant with increased, or steady, revenue post-ban could be a result of the restaurant allowing smoking. But just because it is a suggestion doesn't hurt the strength of the answer for this question.

Gov't bans smoking --- restaurant doesn't lose money ----- Gov't says no smoking because the restaurants are fine without it.
How to weaken this? To show that smoking still helped the restaurant make money. This is answer D!

Vorland’s government is planning a nationwide ban on smoking in restaurants. The objection that the ban would reduce restaurants’ revenues is ill founded. Several towns in Vorland enacted restaurant smoking restrictions five years ago. Since then, the amount the government collects in restaurant meal taxes in those towns has increased 34 percent, on average, but only 26 percent elsewhere in Vorland. The amount collected in restaurant meal taxes closely reflects restaurants’ revenues.

Which of the following, if true, most undermines the defense of the government’s plan?

A. When the state first imposed a restaurant meal tax, opponents predicted that restaurants’ revenues would decline as a result, a prediction that proved to be
correct in the short term.
B. The tax on meals in restaurants is higher than the tax on many other goods and services.
C. Over the last five years, smoking has steadily declined throughout Vorland.
D. In many of the towns that restrict smoking in restaurants, restaurants can maintain separate dining areas where smoking is permitted.
E. Over the last five years, government revenues from sales taxes have grown no faster in the towns with restaurant smoking restrictions than in the towns that have no such restrictions.
_________________
D-Day: November 18th, 2017

My CR Guide: https://gmatclub.com/forum/mod-nightblade-s-quick-guide-to-proficiency-cr-295316.html

Want to be a moderator? We may want you to be one! See how here: https://gmatclub.com/forum/gmat-club-moderators-directory-253455.html

Need a laugh and a break? Go here: https://gmatclub.com/forum/mental-break-funny-videos-270269.html

Need a CR tutor? PM me!
Manager
Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 08 Jan 2018
Posts: 218
Location: United States (ID)
GPA: 3.33
WE: Accounting (Accounting)
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Vorland s government is planning a nationwide ban on smoking  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Feb 2018, 10:48
hello, I did choose D as the correct answer, but I cannot understand how D can connect anything with the premises or the conclusion of the argument. Please help me to understand such gmat method in CR questions.

Thanks.
Retired Moderator
User avatar
V
Joined: 28 Mar 2017
Posts: 1208
Location: India
GMAT 1: 730 Q49 V41
GPA: 4
Re: Vorland s government is planning a nationwide ban on smoking  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Feb 2018, 08:31
Vorland’s government is planning a nationwide ban on smoking in restaurants. The objection that the ban would reduce restaurants’ revenues is ill founded. Several towns in Vorland enacted restaurant smoking restrictions five years ago. Since then, the amount the government collects in restaurant meal taxes in those towns has increased 34 percent, on average, but only 26 percent elsewhere in Vorland. The amount collected in restaurant meal taxes closely reflects restaurants’ revenues. --Highlighted part is the conclusion

Which of the following, if true, most undermines the defense of the government’s plan?

A. When the state first imposed a restaurant meal tax, opponents predicted that restaurants’ revenues would decline as a result, a prediction that proved to be correct in the short term.
Argument is about the impact of "smoking" ban on revenues. This choice is out of scope.

B. The tax on meals in restaurants is higher than the tax on many other goods and services.
This will be consistent throughout the country. This doesn't mean that the ban worked or didn't work. Out of scope.

C. Over the last five years, smoking has steadily declined throughout Vorland.
This should strengthen the argument because if the smoking is reducing then the ban should only help the restaurants.

D. In many of the towns that restrict smoking in restaurants, restaurants can maintain separate dining areas where smoking is permitted.
Correct.

E. Over the last five years, government revenues from sales taxes have grown no faster in the towns with restaurant smoking restrictions than in the towns that have no such restrictions.
But the rate at which the tax from banned areas is increasing is higher than the rate from the areas where smoking is not banned. This would actually strengthen the argument.
_________________
Director
Director
User avatar
P
Joined: 09 Mar 2017
Posts: 509
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, Organizational Behavior
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: Vorland s government is planning a nationwide ban on smoking  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Feb 2018, 06:35
Vorland’s government is planning a nationwide ban on smoking in restaurants. The objection that the ban would reduce restaurants’ revenues is ill founded. Several towns in Vorland enacted restaurant smoking restrictions five years ago. Since then, the amount the government collects in restaurant meal taxes in those towns has increased 34 percent, on average, but only 26 percent elsewhere in Vorland. The amount collected in restaurant meal taxes closely reflects restaurants’ revenues.

Which of the following, if true, most undermines the defense of the government’s plan?

A. When the state first imposed a restaurant meal tax, opponents predicted that restaurants’ revenues would decline as a result, a prediction that proved to be correct in the short term.
B. The tax on meals in restaurants is higher than the tax on many other goods and services.
C. Over the last five years, smoking has steadily declined throughout Vorland.
D. In many of the towns that restrict smoking in restaurants, restaurants can maintain separate dining areas where smoking is permitted.
E. Over the last five years, government revenues from sales taxes have grown no faster in the towns with restaurant smoking restrictions than in the towns that have no such restrictions.
GMATNinja,
Hello,

What if the government has increased the % of tax collected from restaurants , say the tax % has increased to 10% from 5%, in such case the amount the government collects in restaurant meal taxes in those towns can increase 34 percent, on average, but only 26 percent elsewhere in Vorland. E excludes this possibility and hence, undermines the conclusion.
Where as 'can' in D doesn't guarantee that the restaurants have adopted this measure.
What am I missing?

Thank you
_________________
------------------------------
"Trust the timing of your life"
Hit Kudus if this has helped you get closer to your goal, and also to assist others save time. Tq :)
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
User avatar
D
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 2770
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
Re: Vorland s government is planning a nationwide ban on smoking  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Feb 2018, 23:12
4
aaba wrote:
hello, I did choose D as the correct answer, but I cannot understand how D can connect anything with the premises or the conclusion of the argument. Please help me to understand such gmat method in CR questions.

Thanks.

Quote:
Vorland’s government is planning a nationwide ban on smoking in restaurants. The objection that the ban would reduce restaurants’ revenues is ill founded. Several towns in Vorland enacted restaurant smoking restrictions five years ago. Since then, the amount the government collects in restaurant meal taxes in those towns has increased 34 percent, on average, but only 26 percent elsewhere in Vorland. The amount collected in restaurant meal taxes closely reflects restaurants’ revenues.

Which of the following, if true, most undermines the defense of the government’s plan?

A. When the state first imposed a restaurant meal tax, opponents predicted that restaurants’ revenues would decline as a result, a prediction that proved to be correct in the short term.
B. The tax on meals in restaurants is higher than the tax on many other goods and services.
C. Over the last five years, smoking has steadily declined throughout Vorland.
D. In many of the towns that restrict smoking in restaurants, restaurants can maintain separate dining areas where smoking is permitted.
E. Over the last five years, government revenues from sales taxes have grown no faster in the towns with restaurant smoking restrictions than in the towns that have no such restrictions.

The key is to notice that the government is considering a BAN on smoking in restaurants. To defend the ban, the author of the passage uses evidence from a RESTRICTION on smoking in restaurants. Imposing a ban might be much different than imposing restrictions.

Choice (D) illustrates this point. The restaurants in towns with restrictions were fine because, despite the restrictions, those restaurants could allow customers to smoke in separate dining areas. If those towns had smoking bans instead of smoking restrictions, separate dining areas for smokers would not be allowed and perhaps revenues would decrease.

The author's evidence suggests that revenues might not decrease when smoking restrictions are implemented. But this doesn't necessarily provide any evidence related to the effect of a smoking ban.

If choice (D) is true, then the author's argument falls apart, so (D) is the best answer.

TaN1213 wrote:
GMATNinja,
Hello,

What if the government has increased the % of tax collected from restaurants , say the tax % has increased to 10% from 5%, in such case the amount the government collects in restaurant meal taxes in those towns can increase 34 percent, on average, but only 26 percent elsewhere in Vorland. E excludes this possibility and hence, undermines the conclusion.
Where as 'can' in D doesn't guarantee that the restaurants have adopted this measure.
What am I missing?

Thank you

Choice (E) does not actually tell us whether meal tax rates were increased or decreased. Choice (E) simply tells us that total revenue from SALES taxes (much more general than just meal taxes) did not grow any faster in towns with restrictions. Even if choice (E) is true, revenue from MEAL taxes may have grown faster in towns with restrictions. The restaurants in the towns with restrictions may have done very well, while other kinds of shops did very well in the towns WITHOUT restrictions.

In that case, the total sales taxes may have increased by about the same amount in all towns, even though restaurants in towns with the restrictions did much better than restaurants in other towns. So even if (E) is true, the defense of the plan may not be undermined. Yes, we can think of a situation in which (E) is true and the author's argument is weakened. But without further information, we don't know whether (E) undermines the defense of the plan.

Remember that we are not trying to PROVE that the government's plan will fail. We are only looking for the answer choice that MOST undermines the defense of the plan. We could certainly come up with scenarios in which (D) is true and the plan is not undermined. But (D) undermines the defense of the plan more than any of the other choice, so it is the best answer.
_________________
GMAT/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (we're hiring!) | GMAT Club Verbal Expert | Instagram | Blog | Bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal: RC | CR | SC

YouTube LIVE verbal webinars: Series 1: Fundamentals of SC & CR | Series 2: Developing a Winning GMAT Mindset

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations: All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Need an expert reply? Hit the request verbal experts' reply button; be specific about your question, and tag @GMATNinja. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.

SC articles & resources: How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

RC, CR, and other articles & resources: All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for $29.99 | Time management on verbal
SC Moderator
User avatar
V
Joined: 23 Sep 2015
Posts: 1733
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: Vorland s government is planning a nationwide ban on smoking  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Apr 2018, 01:49
Pre-thinking: We need to weaken the government plan's defense. in other words, government’s plan will not be much of use. try to find out a loop hole out of it.

A. When the state first imposed a restaurant meal tax, opponents predicted that restaurants’ revenues would decline as a result, a prediction that proved to be correct in the short term. ---- We are looking for ban on smoke not meal tax.
B. The tax on meals in restaurants is higher than the tax on many other goods and services. --- irrelevant
C. Over the last five years, smoking has steadily declined throughout Vorland.---- not helping.
D. In many of the towns that restrict smoking in restaurants, restaurants can maintain separate dining areas where smoking is permitted. --- So this option is saying that suppose government imposes the ban but restaurant open smoking area which is legal. now government’s ban has no effect. this is what we are looking for.
E. Over the last five years, government revenues from sales taxes have grown no faster in the towns with restaurant smoking restrictions than in the towns that have no such restrictions. --- irrelevant
_________________
Thanks!
Do give some kudos.

Simple strategy:
“Once you’ve eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

Want to improve your Score:
GMAT Ninja YouTube! Series 1| GMAT Ninja YouTube! Series 2 | How to Improve GMAT Quant from Q49 to a Perfect Q51 | Time management

My Notes:
Reading comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Absolute Phrases | Subjunctive Mood
Manager
Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 08 Jan 2018
Posts: 218
Location: United States (ID)
GPA: 3.33
WE: Accounting (Accounting)
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Vorland s government is planning a nationwide ban on smoking  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Apr 2018, 10:25
The second time I solve this question, (I do not remember the argument or the answer), I can do it in 10 seconds by skimming the question. I combine the instinct, meaning, and patterns.
Perhaps, this is the best way to skip questions when time runs out.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 20 Jan 2016
Posts: 69
Location: Canada
Schools: HBS '18
WE: Consulting (Other)
Re: Vorland s government is planning a nationwide ban on smoking  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 May 2018, 11:28
is this an OG question? Does not seem like it.
_________________
Migatte no Gokui
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
G
Joined: 15 Feb 2017
Posts: 302
Re: Vorland s government is planning a nationwide ban on smoking  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 May 2019, 09:39
aragonn wrote:
Pre-thinking: We need to weaken the government plan's defense. in other words, government’s plan will not be much of use. try to find out a loop hole out of it.

A. When the state first imposed a restaurant meal tax, opponents predicted that restaurants’ revenues would decline as a result, a prediction that proved to be correct in the short term. ---- We are looking for ban on smoke not meal tax.
B. The tax on meals in restaurants is higher than the tax on many other goods and services. --- irrelevant
C. Over the last five years, smoking has steadily declined throughout Vorland.---- not helping.
D. In many of the towns that restrict smoking in restaurants, restaurants can maintain separate dining areas where smoking is permitted. --- So this option is saying that suppose government imposes the ban but restaurant open smoking area which is legal. now government’s ban has no effect. this is what we are looking for.
E. Over the last five years, government revenues from sales taxes have grown no faster in the towns with restaurant smoking restrictions than in the towns that have no such restrictions. --- irrelevant


Hi aragonn,

Please help me to understand why not option C.

Option C says that smoking has declined throughout the vorland over the last five years.
What if the smokers quit on its on own without government efforts then the argument doesn't hold.

What is your thought?

Thanks

Posted from my mobile device
_________________
IMPOSSIBLE IS JUST AN OPINION
Director
Director
User avatar
P
Joined: 14 Feb 2017
Posts: 933
Location: Australia
Concentration: Technology, Strategy
Schools: LBS '22
GMAT 1: 560 Q41 V26
GMAT 2: 550 Q43 V23
GMAT 3: 650 Q47 V33
GMAT 4: 650 Q44 V36
WE: Management Consulting (Consulting)
Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: Vorland s government is planning a nationwide ban on smoking  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 05 Aug 2019, 19:40
The objection is based on the fact that some restaurants experienced increases in revenues.

D is correct because it shows that in many, not all, towns restaurants can maintain separate dining areas where smoking is permitted. This means that in some towns this may not be permitted, so we could infer the ban impacted revenues. But even better, what this allowance tells us is that the modified restaurants incorporated separate dining areas to entice both smokers and non-smokers, or smokers who wish to eat after or before they smoke.
_________________
Goal: Q49, V41

+1 Kudos if you like my post pls!
GMAT Club Bot
Re: Vorland s government is planning a nationwide ban on smoking   [#permalink] 05 Aug 2019, 19:40
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Vorland s government is planning a nationwide ban on smoking

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





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