Hi!

We can strengthen the restaurant proprietors' argument by weakening the last two sentence that the proprietors' increase in the percentage of taxes paid in the region of the ban was higher than the region where it was not banned.

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.- We are not sure short term is 1-2 days or a year and other than this we can also assume that after the short term negative impact there was a positive impact- OUT

B. The sales tax in Prohibitionland is lower on food and beverages than it is on other consumer goods, such as clothing.-We are not concerned with clothing.-We OUT OF SCOPE

C. The consumption of alcoholic beverages in Prohibitionland has been on a gradual decline the last 20 years.-Weakens- OUT

D. The restrictions on alcoholic beverages enacted last year allowed for the service of drinks beginning around dinnertime each evening.-HOLD- From this statement we know that there was not complete restriction it's done partially and thus the banned zone solved beverages at a particular time.-Best out of other options.

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.-At the end it was higher rate a substantially higher rate does not matter- OUT

IMO D

Do let me know if the reasoning for the above question is wrong.

Hope this helps!

Posted from my mobile device