It is currently 20 Sep 2017, 13:15

### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Vorland s government is planning a nationwide ban on smoking

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Joined: 28 May 2012
Posts: 136

Kudos [?]: 70 [2], given: 11

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

15 Sep 2012, 09:22
2
KUDOS
12
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

75% (hard)

Question Stats:

62% (01:47) correct 38% (02:05) wrong based on 556 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:
D
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

You want something, go get it . Period !

Kudos [?]: 70 [2], given: 11

Senior Manager
Joined: 28 Jun 2009
Posts: 442

Kudos [?]: 189 [1], given: 46

Location: United States (MA)

### Show Tags

15 Sep 2012, 11:33
1
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.

Kudos [?]: 189 [1], given: 46

Joined: 28 May 2012
Posts: 136

Kudos [?]: 70 [0], given: 11

Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GPA: 3.33
WE: Information Technology (Retail)

### Show Tags

15 Sep 2012, 12:41
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 !

Kudos [?]: 70 [0], given: 11

Intern
Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Posts: 18

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 29

Concentration: Finance, General Management
GMAT Date: 03-05-2013
GPA: 3.79

### Show Tags

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.

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 29

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10167

Kudos [?]: 253 [0], given: 0

Re: Vorland s government is planning a nationwide ban on smoking [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Jun 2015, 09:08
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.

Kudos [?]: 253 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 24 Nov 2015
Posts: 586

Kudos [?]: 36 [0], given: 231

Location: United States (LA)
Re: Vorland s government is planning a nationwide ban on smoking [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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

Kudos [?]: 36 [0], given: 231

Manager
Joined: 10 Jan 2016
Posts: 79

Kudos [?]: 16 [0], given: 1176

Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
GMAT 1: 620 Q47 V29
GPA: 4
Re: Vorland s government is planning a nationwide ban on smoking [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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 ?

Kudos [?]: 16 [0], given: 1176

Manager
Joined: 31 Jul 2017
Posts: 74

Kudos [?]: 32 [0], given: 49

Location: United States
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GPA: 3.32
Re: Vorland s government is planning a nationwide ban on smoking [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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.
_________________

I am new to the forum! Trying to improve my scores, so any tips are appreciated!

Kudos [?]: 32 [0], given: 49

Re: Vorland s government is planning a nationwide ban on smoking   [#permalink] 19 Sep 2017, 05:18
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
108 In order to raise revenue, the federal government planned a 91 15 Jul 2017, 09:25
5 The government has proposed a plan requiring young people to 16 24 Apr 2014, 04:12
46 In order to raise revenue, the federal government planned a 1 31 Jul 2016, 02:39
The government of Country X has introduced new law banning 6 17 Jul 2016, 08:19
2 Vorland s government is planning a nationwide ban on smoking 11 05 Mar 2017, 20:02
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# Vorland s government is planning a nationwide ban on smoking

 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®.