Logic Based reading Comprehension

[sentencecorrection2]

Manhattan 5lb

The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the service of alcoholic beverages in restaurants to curb unruly behavior on the part of its residents. Proprietors of restaurants in Prohibitionland are protesting the ban on the grounds that it will reduce their revenues and profits. However, several provinces in Prohibitionland enacted restrictions on alcoholic beverages last year, and the sales taxes paid by the restaurants in those
provinces rose by an average of 50 percent. In contrast, the sales taxes paid by restaurants located in areas of
Prohibitionland that did not have any restrictions rose by an average of 30 percent.


Which of the following, if true, supports the restaurant proprietors’ economic stance against the ban?

(A) In the provinces that restricted alcoholic beverages, there was a short-term negative impact on restaurant visitation in the beginning of last year.
(B) The sales tax in Prohibitionland is lower on food and beverages than it is on other consumer goods, such as clothing.
(C) The consumption of alcoholic beverages in Prohibitionland has been on a gradual decline the last 20 years.
(D) The restrictions on alcoholic beverages enacted last year allowed for the service of drinks beginning around dinnertime each evening.
(E) Overall sales tax revenue did not increase at a substantially higher rate in the provinces that enacted the restrictions on alcoholic beverages than in the rest of Prohibitionland last year.

Please explain the the answer with explanation.

[tommywallach]

The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the service of alcoholic beverages in restaurants to curb unruly behavior on the part of its residents. Proprietors of restaurants in Prohibitionland are protesting the ban on the grounds that it will reduce their revenues and profits. However, several provinces in Prohibitionland enacted restrictions on alcoholic beverages last year, and the sales taxes paid by the restaurants in those
provinces rose by an average of 50 percent. In contrast, the sales taxes paid by restaurants located in areas of
Prohibitionland that did not have any restrictions rose by an average of 30 percent.

Ban Fans: Ban a.b. curbs unruly behavior, other counties with restrictions [notice the difference between this word and a "ban"] saw sales taxes go up by 50 percent where Prohibitionland only went up 30 percent
Ban Haters: Ban reduces revenues and profits

We're looking to support the last portion here, the ban haters.

(A) In the provinces that restricted alcoholic beverages, there was a short-term negative impact on restaurant visitation in the beginning of last year.

This says it's "short term," so not strong enough to make it clear that the ban WILL reduce revenues and profits.

(B) The sales tax in Prohibitionland is lower on food and beverages than it is on other consumer goods, such as clothing.

Clothing is irrelevant to this argument.

(C) The consumption of alcoholic beverages in Prohibitionland has been on a gradual decline the last 20 years.

This wouldn't affect the argument that the ban will hurt revenues and/or profits, just that revenues and profits are already hurting.

(D) The restrictions on alcoholic beverages enacted last year allowed for the service of drinks beginning around dinnertime each evening.

CORRECT. This destroys one of the premises. The argument was trying to imply that other counties that enacted a BAN saw their tax revenues go up. However, "restrictions" are not the same as a "ban." If these restrictions allowed them to serve alcohol at different hours (and so they made more money), this would not apply in Prohibitionland, which is trying to enact a total ban on alcohol. To be super clear, this question revolves around the difference between "restrictions" and a "ban."

(E) Overall sales tax revenue did not increase at a substantially higher rate in the provinces that enacted the restrictions on alcoholic beverages than in the rest of Prohibitionland last year.

This is talking about sales tax revenue "overall" (i.e. from things other than restaurants). We don't care about that, as the argument is about whether restaurants would see their profits/revenues decline.

Hope that helps! I would recommend, in the future, that you don't simply post questions and ask for an explanation, but try to explain where you got confused in the argument, so that I can try to focus in on where you went wrong. An explanation is all well and good, but the book has explanations already. The forums are useful because we can get more personal! : )

-t