Vorland s government is planning a nationwide ban on smoking

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.


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.
_________________

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 .

Restrictions on smoking:
You can smoke in a specifically marked room in the office, not in any other room. You can smoke on the terrace and in open air sitting area A but not in open air sitting areas B and C.
You can smoke in the open sitting area of the restaurant but not the inside sitting area.
etc.

Ban on smoking:
You cannot smoke anywhere in the office.
You cannot smoke anywhere in the restaurant.

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"

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

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.
_________________

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.

In option D it says restaurants can maintain. So it looks like a suggestion not a statement.
Am I getting it wrong ?

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.

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.

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
_________________

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

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.

is this an OG question? Does not seem like it.

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
_________________

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.

We need to weaken defense of government's plan.
govt plan: ban smoking
defense of government plan: no impact on revenue
undermine defense would mean that we need to show that with smoking ban, the revenue does drop. We need to look for an option which proves this.

A: Short term. Rejected
B: So what ? No impact. Rejected
C: Opposite. Rejected
D: Yes. This weakens the main premise and therefore, the conclusion
E: argument clearly that meal taxes are reflective of revenue. So, there is no need to look at any other tax

IMO D

This question is tricky because of the way its worded:

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

What is the government's plan? Vorland’s government is planning a nationwide ban on smoking in restaurants.
What is the defense of this plan? Restaurant meal taxes actually increased in towns that enacted smoking restrictions.

So to answer the question we need to find something that attacks the defense.

A, B, and C can be eliminated as they are out of scope or irrelevant.

In choice E, we're told government revenues from sales tax in general have grown no faster in the towns with restaurant smoking restrictions than in the towns that have no such restrictions. However, the defense only speaks to restaurant meal taxes, not sales tax in general! E is out.

In choice D, we're told restaurants can maintain separate dining areas where smoking is permitted. Interesting. If that's the case, then perhaps the objection to the government's plan is not ill founded -- people might no longer go to these restaurants if they aren't able to smoke in these designated smoking areas. Choice D is the answer.
_________________