Thormac, LLC, d/b/a McCormack’s Whisky Grill and Smokehouse, had its alcoholic beverage license suspended for seven days, plus a \($500\) fine, for failure to comply with the statute that requires food sales be at least 45 percent of the combined gross receipts from the sale of mixed beverages and food. McCormack’s appealed the decision. The charge against the restaurant stated that during the preceding license year, the gross receipts from sale of food was \($159,651\) and its total sales for mixed beverages was \($245,306\) (39.2 percent from food and 60.

58 percent from mixed beverages). At the hearing, an ABC Special Agent testified that the restaurant sells more food than liquor, but the restaurant offers expensive, premium liquors, and the ratio is based on sales, not volume. McCormack’s testified that it could not increase the price of food because it would exceed market price and result in customers going elsewhere. On appeal of the ABC decision, the court affirmed and ordered a 30-day suspension of the alcohol license, reduced to 15 days if they agreed to pay \($1,000\) up front. McCormack argued that the court merely “rubber-stamped” the ABC Board’s Final Decision and failed to perform the necessary legal analysis. How should the appellate court rule? Was the decision to uphold the appeal arbitrary or capricious?