adkikani wrote:
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.
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.
Quote:
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 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.
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.
Quote:
If the statements above are true, which of the following must be true?
adkikani wrote:
This suggests I need to infer from the statements above.
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!
Quote:
(A) Some lawyers who now advertise will charge more for specific services if they do not have to specify fee arrangements in the advertisements.
adkikani wrote:
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.
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).
Quote:
(B) More consumers will use legal services if there are fewer restrictions on the advertising of legal services.
adkikani wrote:
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.
(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).
Quote:
(C) If the restriction against advertisements that do not specify fee arrangements is removed, more lawyers will advertise their services.
adkikani wrote:
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.
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.
Quote:
(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.
adkikani wrote:
I can not infer about the group in underlined portion
Right. There is no information about how lawyers who don’t advertise would behave, so we eliminate (D).
Quote:
(E) If the only restrictions on the advertising of legal services were those that apply to every type of advertising, most lawyers would advertise their services.
adkikani wrote:
The underlined portion is completely out of scope of topic discussed in argument.
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!
close
Updated on: 01 Jun 2021, 08:21
36%
(02:32)
wrong 
