Events & Promotions
|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Apr 1612:00 PM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
You’re first to know: Save $200 on GMAT prep starting tomorrow, 4/13. Get 6 official practice tests and study with real questions. Be ready to save!
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
13 Apr 2026, 10:59
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi MartyMurray, what "acknowledges a circumstances" means in the argument in the option B? Can you give me one example to get more understanding of it? Here though C was good to go, but I have come across this phrase many times and want to clarify it.
13 Apr 2026, 13:30
Kudos
Bookmarks
Consumer advocate: It is generally true, at least in this state, that lawyers who advertise a specific service charge less for that service than lawyers who do not advertise. It is also true that each time restrictions on the advertising of legal services have been eliminated, the number of lawyers advertising their services has increased and legal costs to consumers have declined in consequence. However, eliminating the state requirement that legal advertisements must specify fees for specific services would almost certainly increase rather than further reduce consumer’s legal costs. Lawyers would no longer have an incentive to lower their fees when they begin advertising and if no longer required to specify fee arrangements, many lawyers who now advertise would increase their fees.
In the consumer advocate’s argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?
The advocate’s conclusion is that removing the requirement to specify fees would increase, not reduce, consumer legal costs. The first boldface statement gives a past pattern that might seem to support the opposite outcome, so it is a point the advocate concedes before arguing that this case is different. The second boldface statement is a reason for the advocate’s prediction that costs would rise.
A. The first is a generalization that the consumer advocate accepts as true; the second is presented as a consequence that follows from the truth of that generalization.
This is wrong. The second boldface does not follow from the first. In fact, the first tends to suggest lower costs after removing advertising restrictions, while the second helps explain why this particular change would instead raise costs.
B. The first is a pattern of cause and effect that the consumer advocate argues will be repeated in the case at issue; the second acknowledges a circumstance in which that pattern would not hold.
This is the opposite of what happens. The advocate does not say the old pattern will repeat. The advocate says this case is an exception.
C. The first is pattern of cause and effect that the consumer advocate predicts will not hold in the case at issue; the second offers a consideration in support of that prediction.
This is correct. The first boldface gives the earlier pattern: fewer restrictions -> more advertising -> lower costs. The advocate then argues that this pattern will not hold here. The second boldface supports that by saying many current advertisers would raise their fees if they no longer had to specify them.
D. The first is evidence that the consumer advocate offers in support of a certain prediction; the second is that prediction.
Wrong. The second boldface is not the main prediction. It is one supporting reason.
E. The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the main position that the consumer advocate defends; the second is that position.
The first part is right, but the second part is wrong. The second boldface is not the main position; it is support for that position.
Answer: (C)
In the consumer advocate’s argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?
The advocate’s conclusion is that removing the requirement to specify fees would increase, not reduce, consumer legal costs. The first boldface statement gives a past pattern that might seem to support the opposite outcome, so it is a point the advocate concedes before arguing that this case is different. The second boldface statement is a reason for the advocate’s prediction that costs would rise.
A. The first is a generalization that the consumer advocate accepts as true; the second is presented as a consequence that follows from the truth of that generalization.
This is wrong. The second boldface does not follow from the first. In fact, the first tends to suggest lower costs after removing advertising restrictions, while the second helps explain why this particular change would instead raise costs.
B. The first is a pattern of cause and effect that the consumer advocate argues will be repeated in the case at issue; the second acknowledges a circumstance in which that pattern would not hold.
This is the opposite of what happens. The advocate does not say the old pattern will repeat. The advocate says this case is an exception.
C. The first is pattern of cause and effect that the consumer advocate predicts will not hold in the case at issue; the second offers a consideration in support of that prediction.
This is correct. The first boldface gives the earlier pattern: fewer restrictions -> more advertising -> lower costs. The advocate then argues that this pattern will not hold here. The second boldface supports that by saying many current advertisers would raise their fees if they no longer had to specify them.
D. The first is evidence that the consumer advocate offers in support of a certain prediction; the second is that prediction.
Wrong. The second boldface is not the main prediction. It is one supporting reason.
E. The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the main position that the consumer advocate defends; the second is that position.
The first part is right, but the second part is wrong. The second boldface is not the main position; it is support for that position.
Answer: (C)
16 Apr 2026, 07:52
Kudos
Bookmarks
gullyboy09
"Acknowledges a circumstance in which that pattern would not hold" means "concedes that there is a type of situation in which a pattern previously mentioned would not exist."
The point of the author's doing so would be to admit that, while the fact of the existence of a certain pattern is essential to the argument, that pattern may not hold in a certain situation.
In this case, the author does say that the pattern "that lawyers who advertise a specific service charge less for that service than lawyers who do not advertise" would not hold in a situation such that lawyers are "no longer required to specify fee arrangements." The author says that, in such a situation "lawyers who now advertise would increase their fees."
At the same time, it's not correct to say that the author "concedes" or "acknowledges" that such a circumstance exists. The reason why is that the author does not CONCEDE that point about the pattern not existing in that situation but, rather, USES that point to support the main conclusion.
So, in general, in Boldface questions, "acknowledges" often means that the author concedes something that could be taken as weighing against the author's point.
Here's another example:
Supplementing fossil fuels with ethanol made from corn has been touted as a way to reduce the negative environmental impacts of internal combustion engines. However, as tempting as it may be to decide that this approach is sound, it is not. While it is true that the use of corn based ethanol generates harmful emissions in significantly smaller volumes than are generated via similar use of fossil fuels, the negative impacts indirectly caused by the use of corn based ethanol, such as environmental degradation resulting from land use, exceed any benefits gained.
In the above example, the author "acknowledges" that "the use of corn based ethanol generates harmful emissions in significantly smaller volumes than are generated via similar use of fossil fuels." In other words, the author concedes that there is a benefit to using corn-based ethanol while making the overall point that using it is not a sound approach.
