It is currently 19 Feb 2018, 16:10

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

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

3 KUDOS received
BSchool Thread Master
User avatar
Joined: 28 May 2012
Posts: 135
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 15 Sep 2012, 08:22
3
This post received
KUDOS
18
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  75% (hard)

Question Stats:

61% (01:44) correct 39% (01:57) wrong based on 790 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.

[Reveal] Spoiler:
Please discuss each answer choice.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

You want something, go get it . Period !


Last edited by Mahmud6 on 22 Oct 2017, 20:44, edited 1 time in total.
Formatted
1 KUDOS received
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 28 Jun 2009
Posts: 438
Location: United States (MA)
Re: Vorland s government is planning a nationwide ban on smoking [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Sep 2012, 10:33
1
This post received
KUDOS
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: 135
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, 11:41
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
Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Posts: 18
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, 08:33
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.
Non-Human User
User avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10321
Premium Member
Re: Vorland s government is planning a nationwide ban on smoking [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Jun 2015, 08:08
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.
Director
Director
User avatar
S
Joined: 24 Nov 2015
Posts: 584
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, 14:29
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
Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 10 Jan 2016
Posts: 113
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
GMAT 1: 620 Q47 V29
GPA: 4
WE: Business Development (Consulting)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: Vorland s government is planning a nationwide ban on smoking [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Jul 2017, 07:37
In option D it says restaurants can maintain. So it looks like a suggestion not a statement.
Am I getting it wrong ?
Manager
Manager
User avatar
G
Joined: 31 Jul 2017
Posts: 170
Location: United States
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GPA: 3.32
Reviews Badge
Re: Vorland s government is planning a nationwide ban on smoking [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Sep 2017, 04:18
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

Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 08 Jan 2018
Posts: 146
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, 09:48
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.
Director
Director
User avatar
P
Joined: 28 Mar 2017
Posts: 879
CAT Tests
Re: Vorland s government is planning a nationwide ban on smoking [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Feb 2018, 07:31
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.
_________________

Kudos if my post helps!

Helpful links:
1. Useful Formulae, Concepts and Tricks-Quant
2. e-GMAT's ALL SC Compilation
3. LSAT RC compilation
4. Actual LSAT CR collection by Broal
5. QOTD RC (Carcass)
6. Challange OG RC

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
G
Joined: 09 Mar 2017
Posts: 342
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, 05:35
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 :)

Expert Post
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
User avatar
G
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 1438
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: 340 Q170 V170
Vorland s government is planning a nationwide ban on smoking [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Feb 2018, 22:12
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 Club Verbal Expert | GMAT/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (Now hiring!) | GMAT blog | Food blog | Notoriously bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal
Reading Comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Sentence Correction

YouTube LIVE verbal webinars
Series 1: Fundamentals of SC & CR | Series 2: Developing a Winning GMAT Mindset -- starts February 14!

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 -- and please be specific about your question. Feel free to tag @GMATNinja and @GMATNinjaTwo in your post.

Sentence Correction 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?

Reading Comprehension, Critical Reasoning, 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... in any section order

Vorland s government is planning a nationwide ban on smoking   [#permalink] 15 Feb 2018, 22:12
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  


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®.