The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising of legal services

Hi Vivek,

It's very good to see your detailed analysis - this is the way to go to understand CR questions. So, you are on the right path

The other benefit of sharing such analysis is that an expert can figure out the exact problem in your thinking and provide you a solution that helps you not only in this particular question but also in other CR questions too.

Let me now respond to your questions.



"Overall" sort of means total; it does not mean each and every cost. So, when we say overall cost of living has come down, we mean that total cost of living has come down, not that each and every cost (eatables, cars, cylinders etc) has come down. Similarly, in this case, overall means total - includes both who advertise and those who don't - so, even if one of the categories reduces its charges, it leads to reduction in overall costs. Both of them need not reduce the charges. So, option D is not required for the conclusion in the argument to hold and thus, we cannot conclude it from the argument.



GENERAL ADVICE
Whenever you are confused about the meaning of a word, try to use that word in a regular everyday sentence and see what it means - that would help you in most of the cases. While solving CR questions, we tend to take very literal meaning (overall means all) of the words but if we can think of a regular everyday use of the word, that would provide us the right context and meaning of the sentence.



Option C is not an assumption. It is a direct inference from the first statement of the passage. The first statement says that
"The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising of legal services, the more lawyers there are who advertise their services"

So, we know from this statement that if we reduce restrictions, more lawyers will advertise their services. This is what option C says:
If the restriction against advertisements that do not specify fee arrangements is removed, more lawyers will advertise their services

It does not matter which restrictions are removed, we know if any restriction is removed, it will lead to more lawyers advertising their services.

GENERAL ADVICE
It happens to lot of us that as we move through an inference passage, we read them as in other question types - i.e. we try to get an overall hang of the passage. However, unlike in other question types where not every statement is critical and the overall understanding matters most, in Inference questions, we must read each statement very carefully because the answer statement could just be an inference or restatement of a single statement in the passage.

Hope this helps

Thanks,
Chiranjeev
_________________

The argument states:
(1) Fewer the restrictions ==> more lawyers are to advertise
(2) Lawyers, who advertise, usually charge less
(3) Removal of restrictions ==> reduction of overall consumer legal costs

A) From the given information, there is no way to deduce that some lawyers, who now advertise, will charge more. Rather, the information implies that no lawyer would raise service fees.
B) There is no information on whether there will be any change in the number of consumers for legal services.
C) The argument says that removal of restrictions results in increase in number of lawyers who advertise. Statement in this option is in accordance with the argument. This is correct.
D) There is no information supporting this statement. It is possible that those lawyers, who do not advertise, will not lower their fees.
E) There is no information supporting the statement.

Correct answer is C.

why is D not the answer. D. If more lawyers advertise lower prices for specific services, some lawyers who do not advertise will also charge less than they currently charge for those services.


This argument already has a conclusion in the "therefore" in the last sentence.

if overall consumer legal costs will be lower, than it's because more lawyers will advertise lower prices, so then even the lawyers who do not advertise will have to also charge less

for doe007's response to why D is wrong, i feel like i can also apply it to choice C, why does removing the restriction automatically mean that more people will advertise?

Hi Dhlee,

So this is tricky to explain, but D is definitely wrong (n.b it is an OG question - so there can be no doubts that it's a good question with one clear answer)

Basically the argument is saying lawyers who advertise charge less, so the more advertising the less on average people will charge.

SO if there are more opportunities to advertise more lawyers will advertise, so the average cost will come down.

D however says something about lawyers who choose not to advertise. This is different. Now no lawyers in a sector can advertise - so all cost more. If advertising is allowed, some will do it (and hence lower their costs, according to this argument), some will not. The average cost will go down - but there is nothing inherent in the argument to say that the people who choose not to advertise will lower their price.

Complex to explain, but with the eyes that you are 100% clear that D is correct (as it is OG) read through a few times more.

James

Q - 54 - The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising of legal services, the more lawyers there are who advertise their services, and the lawyers who advertise a specific service usually charge less for that service than the lawyers who do not advertise. Therefore, if the state removes any of its current restrictions, such as the one against advertisements that do not specify fee arrangements, overall consumer legal costs will be lower than if the state retains its current restrictions.
If the statements above are true, which of the following must be true?

(C) If the restriction against advertisements that do not specify fee arrangements is removed, more lawyers will advertise their services.
(D) If more lawyers advertise lower prices for specific services, some lawyers who do not advertise will also charge less than they currently charge for those services.


In this OG Q#54 of CR section, the question asks for a statement that can be drawn from the Argument.

The premise in this question states that - Fewer restrictions --> More lawyers who advertise --> AND, These lawyers charge less as compared to lawyers who do not advertise.
Based on this the conclusion states that - No restrictions (eg. mentioning fee) --> OVERALL legal cost must be lower
*The word "overall" implies that both who advertise and those who don't (maybe due to competition once the rates are out in the open) will lower their fees.

By this logic, isn't 'D' the correct answer..?

All I see is that C is an assumption that needs to hold as per the premise for the author's conclusion to hold true. Also, C states the middle action (from the premise statement) which helps to achieve the final aim of lowering the costs of Lawyer services (which is the actual objective of removing the restrictions)

But if we have to find a statement that should be true as per the conclusion, then it must be D. For, it is D that talks about the lowering of costs.

Thanks in advance for solving my query..!!

Thanks a lot, Chiranjeev...!!!

I get your point and it makes sense. "Overall" does refer to total cost but it need not be attained through increase in the nos. of lawyers who don't advertise their services.

And, D is also a more valid answer choice after getting over the first issue.

So, on an "overall" basis, should we give more prominence to the conclusion while finding a a response to a CR question or the premises is equally relevant.
I understand the normally stated answer to this question but what I actually want to ask is that should our point of view be more focused to counter/negate/support et al the conclusion only or the entire CR passage (i.e. premises+conclusion) in general.

The reason why I am asking is that in 90% of the cases the answer choices which vaguely hits the premises are wrong choices. So I normally use a policy whereby hunt an option that directly affects the conclusion and reach the answer. It makes sense as well (in most of the cases except here).

As you have said that in inference question we need to consider the entire scope of passage; its a point well taken. But, is this conclusion centered technique good enough..? Have you come across many cases where inference leads to answer? Would this approach help me score 40+ in GMAT..??

Thanks..!!

Hi Vivek,

The conclusion is the most important part of the CR passage because ideally and generally the whole passage must revolves around the conclusion. So, you need to keep the maximum focus on the conclusion. However, it does not mean that you lose sight of the premises or the logical flow (assumptions) but that if you are not able to make much sense of the passage, you should at least try to understand the conclusion. Understanding the conclusion is the key to solve CR questions.


I don't understand the highlighted part.

Again to emphasize here, I am not saying that premises or assumptions are not important or they can be read casually, what I am saying is that if, in the actual exam, you have lesser time or if you are just not able to understand the whole passage, then at least understand the conclusion. IT does not mean that you adopt this strategy for all CR questions; it won't help. To develop your thinking ability and understanding, you need to understand everything in the passage.

Thanks,
Chiranjeev
_________________

Even I am getting to answer D for this question.

Conclusion: Overall consumer legal costs will be lower if the state removes any of its current legislations

To hold the conclusion true, we have to get to a statement which will reduce consumer legal costs. Isn't it?
The answer choice should be D

Hi Aakrity,

Referring to the highlighted part: No. This is not the meaning of this question. We are not looking here to strengthen the conclusion. From the option statement, we are looking for a statement that "must be" true given that everything in the passage is true.

This is an inference question. Look at the question stem:

If the statements above are true, which of the following must be true?

It looks like you are new to GMAT.

Thanks,
Chiranjeev
_________________

Thanks Chiranjeev. Yes I am new to gmat. I understand the concept of inference questions now.
Just want to check if the question was to strengthen the conclusion then what would be the correct answer choice? D?

Posted from my mobile device

Yup. Option D seems to strengthen the argument.

Thanks,
Chiranjeev
_________________

Hi GMATNinja generis VeritasPrepKarishma nightblade354

Can you please validate my reasoning and PoE:
I think the stimulus is most important part for an inference question since usually there is no conclusion present.



↓ restrictions on advertising of legal services → ↑ lawyers can advertise their services.
lawyers (who advertise specific service say family matters or criminal cases) → ↓ costs for customers than customers availing services of
lawyers who do not advertise their specific services. Hope my causal interpretation is correct.



States removing a current restriction (particular eg. one against advertisements that do not specify fee arrangements ) → ↓ legal costs for consumers
Very odd, but we do find a conclusion marked by therefore in this inference question.


This suggests I need to infer from the statements above.


The stimulus says that if lawyers do not have to specify fee arrangements in their advertisements then they shall charge less since they will be
able to advertise more.
This option is completely opposite.


Sound too logical and compelling, but the stimulus does not say so. It is very hard though to disregard common sense
in saying if lower restrictions lead to lower costs, why would consumers not avail such legal services.


I missed this in initial read since specific arrangements is mentioned in only last sentence and is one of example of restrictions to be planned
imposing by state. The first sentence of argument merely tells advertisements about legal services. In a way this option is so
close to paraphrasing first sentence of argument.



I can not infer about the group in underlined portion.


The underlined portion is completely out of scope of topic discussed in argument.
_________________

Every part of the prompt and the question are important, so it can be dangerous to assume that one part is more important than the others. It's not a very sexy thing to say, but you'll always want to break each question down as it’s written, and make your decisions based on exactly what's on the page -- without cherry-picking some bits that are more important.


As you’ve noted, this prompt definitely has a conclusion: if the state removes any of its current restrictions... overall consumer legal costs will be lower than if the state retains its current restrictions.

So let’s break down how the author reaches this conclusion:

• Lawyers who advertise a specific service usually charge less for that service than lawyers who do not advertise.
• If restrictions on advertising legal services decrease, then the number of lawyers who advertise their services increases.
• There is a current restriction against advertisements that do not specify fee arrangements.
• If the state removes any current restriction, then overall consumer legal costs will decrease.

That’s correct. It would be tempting to pick an answer choice that strengthens or completes the argument, but we’re being asked to identify which of the five statements below must be true based on the information already provided.

Note that the question stem is not something like, "The information provided most strongly supports which of the following?" That would be your classic inference question. Yes, we are looking for something that can be inferred from the passage. But, more specifically, we are looking for something that must be true based on the information already provided.

Let’s dive in!



To be more precise, the passage states that “lawyers who advertise a specific service usually charge less for that service than lawyers who do not advertise.” Because we take this statement to be true, and because we see no information stating how these lawyers would change their fee amounts in response to this particular change, we eliminate (A).



(B) is tempting because it bridges the logical gap between an increase in lawyers advertising services and a decrease in overall consumer legal costs. It would certainly strengthen the argument if true. However, nothing in the passage indicates that this must already be true. That’s why we eliminate (B).



Yes, this option restates information that we’ve see in the passage:

• If restrictions on advertising legal services decrease, then the number of lawyers who advertise their services increases.
• There is a current restriction against advertisements that do not specify fee arrangements.

If each of these statements is true, then it must follow that removing this one current restriction will result in an increase in lawyers advertising legal services. Because (C) can be verified without bringing in any outside information, let’s keep it around as the best answer choice and finish reviewing the other choices.



Right. There is no information about how lawyers who don’t advertise would behave, so we eliminate (D).



We see no information about how lawyers would change their advertising preferences in response to this particular use of restrictions. Eliminate (E).

That leaves us with (C) as the strongest (and correct) answer choices. I hope this helps!
_________________

GMATNinja, I am also of the opinion that info mentioned in choice C is already there in the argument.

Argument: The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising of legal services, the more lawyers there are who advertise their services

Option C: If the restriction against advertisements that do not specify fee arrangements is removed, more lawyers will advertise their services.

So, C seems to be just a re-statement. Then how is it correct?

It's correct because the question asks, "If the statements above are true, which of the following must be true?"

Can an inference be a couple logical steps away from the information in the passage? Absolutely. Can it be a simple re-phrasing of something in the passage? Absolutely. (More on common inference errors in this video.)

Every other choice can be eliminated, and (C) remains the only choice that's true according to the passage, so we're going to keep it.
_________________

VeritasKarishma
sorry to ask again on same logic but i m trying to get hold of this :
The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising of legal services, the more lawyers there are who advertise their services
so, if fewer restriction, more advertising lawyer
so b implies a
there more adv implies fewer restriction

only if fewer restriction ,then more adv lawyer
a implies b
so If the restriction against advertisements that do not specify fee arrangements is removed, more lawyers will advertise their services.
that is c
So canwe decide that this is only if ?
beacuse once decided,rest answering is just a cake walk
Plz help

The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising of legal services, the more lawyers there are who advertise their services.

This is equivalent to:
If there are fewer restrictions, then more lawyers advertise.
If A, then B.
So A implies B
and Not B implies not A.

Option (C) is correct.

Only if will usually come with words such as "necessary", "must" etc.

Dear AjiteshArun VeritasKarishma GMATGuruNY IanStewart VeritasPrepBrian MartyTargetTestPrep ccooley egmat,


Q1. From the question stem above, how do we know that this is an "inference", not an "assumption", question?

My understanding of the question stem:

Sufficient Condition: Statements in the passage are true
Necessary Condition: Answer choice that follows

Since the answer choice is necessary for the statement above to be true, why can't we interpret that this question is an assumption question?
An assumption is what MUST BE TRUE for a conclusion to hold true.

Q2. If the question stem were: "If the conclusion is true, which of the following must be true?"
Then will this new question stem be an inference or an assumption question?

GMATNinja mentioned that this passage has a conclusion:

According to the original question stem, "statements above" already include conclusion!

The question stem is often used by inference questions.



means everything said in the argument is true. So we are given that all these statements are true.

If fewer restrictions, more lawyers advertise.
If lawyers advertise, they charge less.
So fewer restrictions will mean less charge.



What else would be true?

C) If the restriction against advertisements that do not specify fee arrangements is removed, more lawyers will advertise their services.

Correct. If restrictions are removed, more lawyers will advertise.

It will be a restatement of something already given in the argument.

An assumption question stem is different: Which of the following options must be true for the argument to be true? - looking for assumption
Here we are saying if the argument is true, which option must be true - looking for inference