It is currently 19 Nov 2017, 09:24

Close

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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Consumer advocate: It is generally true, at least in this state, that

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 15 May 2010
Posts: 190

Kudos [?]: 33 [0], given: 65

Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
WE: Engineering (Manufacturing)
Reviews Badge
Re: Consumer advocate: It is generally true, at least in this state, that [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Oct 2015, 00:28
Public health advocate: It is generally true that medications that undergo the extensive FDA Phase III clinical safety testing are much safer than less-researched drugs. It is also true that whenever such trials are conducted, fewer people have experienced unexpected harmful side effects, thus reducing public health risks. However, eliminating the requirement that even FDA-tested medications continue to include extensive warnings about individual risk factors would almost certainly harm rather than help public health. Consumers would tend to rely on the FDA’s general certification of safety, and if no longer encouraged to read about individual risks and drug interactions, many patients would suffer serious adverse reactions.

The two bolded statements serve what purpose in the context of the public health advocate’s argument?

The first bold face "such trials are conducted, fewer people have experienced unexpected harmful side effects, thus reducing public health risks" expresses cause and effect relationship. FDI trials of medications -------------> few harmful side effects observed

This paragraph "However, eliminating the requirement that even FDA-tested medications continue to include extensive warnings about individual risk factors would almost certainly harm rather than help public health" expresses a resulting possibility of a course of action i.e. if warnings about risk factors would be removed from FDA tested medication.

This paragraph "Consumers would tend to rely on the FDA’s general certification of safety, and if no longer encouraged to read about individual risks and drug interactions, many patients would suffer serious adverse reactions" supports the second para stating that consumer without having individual guidelines about safety and drug effects would have serious adverse reaction.- Second bold face contradicts the cause-effect relationship if warnings are removed.

A. The first is a general pattern that the advocate accepts as true; the second is said to be a natural consequence that must follow if the general pattern applies.

B. The first is a causal relationship that the advocate believes will happen again in the case at issue; the second admits a situation in which the relationship
would not hold.

C. The first describes a cause and effect relationship that the advocate believes will not hold in the case at issue;
the second suggests a consideration that supports that belief. ------ Only C fits in the slot.

D. The first is proof that the advocate uses to support a prediction; the second states that prediction.

E. The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the stance that the advocate supports; the second is that stance.

Kudos [?]: 33 [0], given: 65

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 02 Jul 2015
Posts: 38

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 1

WE: Investment Banking (Investment Banking)
Re: Consumer advocate: It is generally true, at least in this state, that [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Jan 2016, 10:53
Solved it in 3.47. Made a mistake by not reading the question before the argument. Reading the question before the argument helps.

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 1

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 28 Jun 2015
Posts: 46

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 42

Location: United States
GMAT 1: 610 Q49 V27
GPA: 2.5
WE: Project Management (Telecommunications)
Re: Consumer advocate: It is generally true, at least in this state, that [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Feb 2016, 16:08
It is a tough one.
And i need to solve it around 3 minutes.
(normally, i need 3-3.5 minutes to solve a tough Boldface)
One technique i use is to catch relation between first part and second part. (are they in the same tone or not)
In this question, first and second part are not in the same tone.
Only B and C have a twist.
But B is wrong for the description of second part.
Thus, i pick C. (actually i picked B in a mock test under timing pressure, and i only use to around 1:45 minutes)
Next time, i will definitely slow down to solve such tough boldface question.

My two cents :)
If you like my post, plz kudo it.

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 42

1 KUDOS received
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
S
Status: Professional GMAT Tutor
Affiliations: AB, cum laude, Harvard University (Class of '02)
Joined: 10 Jul 2015
Posts: 420

Kudos [?]: 503 [1], given: 55

Location: United States (CA)
Age: 37
GMAT 1: 770 Q47 V48
GMAT 2: 730 Q44 V47
GMAT 3: 750 Q50 V42
GRE 1: 337 Q168 V169
WE: Education (Education)
Re: Consumer advocate: It is generally true, at least in this state, that [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 Mar 2016, 01:01
1
This post received
KUDOS
Attached is a visual that should help.
Attachments

Screen Shot 2016-03-31 at 1.00.41 AM.png
Screen Shot 2016-03-31 at 1.00.41 AM.png [ 113.96 KiB | Viewed 3654 times ]


_________________

Harvard grad and 770 GMAT scorer, offering high-quality private GMAT tutoring, both in-person and via Skype, since 2002.

McElroy Tutoring

Kudos [?]: 503 [1], given: 55

Board of Directors
User avatar
G
Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Posts: 2672

Kudos [?]: 431 [0], given: 200

Location: United States (IL)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V30
GPA: 3.92
WE: General Management (Transportation)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: Consumer advocate: It is generally true, at least in this state, that [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Nov 2016, 08:06
garimavyas wrote:
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?
(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.
(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.
(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.
(D) The first is evidence that the consumer advocate offers in support of a certain prediction; the second is that
prediction.
(E) The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the main position that the consumer advocate
defends; the second is that position.

OA after discussion, please post your timing too


agree on C.
first is a cause-effect known at the moment
second is a premise to support the author's position.

C fits, C is the answer.

Kudos [?]: 431 [0], given: 200

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 26 Dec 2015
Posts: 256

Kudos [?]: 55 [0], given: 1

Location: United States (CA)
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
WE: Investment Banking (Venture Capital)
Re: Consumer advocate: It is generally true, at least in this state, that [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Sep 2017, 09:51
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?

IDENTIFY CONCLUSION: 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.
> BF2 = premise supporting the Conclusion


(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.
- BF2 is NOT a consequence...

(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.
- BF2 does not acknowledge a circumstance in which a pattern (identified by BF1) does not hold

(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.
- correct as is. pattern will not hold b/c author goes on to say that eliminating requirements would increase costs (instead of eliminating them). also, BF2 is supporting the prediction (conclusion)

(D) The first is evidence that the consumer advocate offers in support of a certain prediction; the second is that prediction.
- BF2 is not a conclusion or prediction -- it is evidence/a premise

(E) The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the main position that the consumer advocate defends; the second is that position.
- BF2 is not a conclusion

What is great about this question is once you've identified the Conclusion, it's easy to spot what BF2 does (support the conclusion). Examine the A/C -- all of the incorrect ones do not categorize BF2 properly.

Kudos please if helpful :)

Kudos [?]: 55 [0], given: 1

Manager
Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 12 Nov 2016
Posts: 52

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 22

Location: Kazakhstan
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Finance
GMAT 1: 620 Q36 V39
GPA: 3.2
Re: Consumer advocate: It is generally true, at least in this state, that [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Nov 2017, 03:32
I am not satisfied with explanation at all. I think that this question is hard because choices B and C are almost identical, however, I root for choice B because in my opinion there is nothing in the first bold face portion that indicates that indicates prediction that this pattern for reduction of costs will not hold! Am I blind? Missing something?
C'mon - this is the first bold portion "...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". Where in this entire bold portion 1 you see prediction that this pattern will not hold? Not in this portion at all. There is nothing to indicate that this argument is not correct, not in this boldface portion. A second portion acknowledges a circumstance in which pattern will not hold - exactly C. Look, the pattern is valid but not in case if requirement to specify fee arrangements ceases.

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 22

Expert Post
1 KUDOS received
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4488

Kudos [?]: 8741 [1], given: 105

Re: Consumer advocate: It is generally true, at least in this state, that [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Nov 2017, 10:13
1
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
Erjan_S wrote:
I am not satisfied with explanation at all. I think that this question is hard because choices B and C are almost identical, however, I root for choice B because in my opinion there is nothing in the first bold face portion that indicates that indicates prediction that this pattern for reduction of costs will not hold! Am I blind? Missing something?
C'mon - this is the first bold portion "...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". Where in this entire bold portion 1 you see prediction that this pattern will not hold? Not in this portion at all. There is nothing to indicate that this argument is not correct, not in this boldface portion. A second portion acknowledges a circumstance in which pattern will not hold - exactly C. Look, the pattern is valid but not in case if requirement to specify fee arrangements ceases.

Dear Erjan_S,

I'm happy to respond. :-)

I agree, there's something subtle going on here--what exactly is the "case at hand" discussed in (B) & (C)?

One way to think about this is to think about the the personality of the person making an argument. First, think about a general argument:
Premise #1 (we all agree on this)
Premise #2 (we all agree on this)
Conclusion (this is what I really wanted to say to you)
If I am the person making the argument, the premises are just things I say to lay the groundwork, to establish agreement points with others before I try to change how they thing; by contrast, the conclusion represents my thoughts, what I really have to say. That's my focus and concern. In any argument, the focus is the conclusion.

In this argument, the first two sentences are premises. That's what has started in the past and has been true for a long time. There's nothing new happening there, just the same old patterns. What has been happening for years is not the "case at hand," the pressing issue of the moment.

In sentence #3, we hear about something that sounds new: "eliminating the state requirement that legal advertisements must specify fees for specific services." This is a new element, apparently up for discussion right now, so this is the "case at hand." This is the controversial issue. This is where the focus of the author is. This is the matter under debate: everyone agrees on the premises, but presumably not everyone agrees with this author--he wouldn't have to make his argument if everyone else agreed with him! He is making his argument, his case, about this possible new change in the law.

Thus, BF #1 is something that preceded the case at hand, and the author expects that that pattern will not continue to hold in the case at hand.
BF #2 is a reason why that pattern will not hold in the case at hand.
This is precisely what (C) says.

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Image

Image

Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)

Kudos [?]: 8741 [1], given: 105

Manager
Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 12 Nov 2016
Posts: 52

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 22

Location: Kazakhstan
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Finance
GMAT 1: 620 Q36 V39
GPA: 3.2
Re: Consumer advocate: It is generally true, at least in this state, that [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Nov 2017, 10:56
mikemcgarry wrote:
,

I'm happy to respond. :-)

I agree, there's something subtle going on here--what exactly is the "case at hand" discussed in (B) & (C)?

One way to think about this is to think about the the personality of the person making an argument. First, think about a general argument:
Premise #1 (we all agree on this)
Premise #2 (we all agree on this)
Conclusion (this is what I really wanted to say to you)
If I am the person making the argument, the premises are just things I say to lay the groundwork, to establish agreement points with others before I try to change how they thing; by contrast, the conclusion represents my thoughts, what I really have to say. That's my focus and concern. In any argument, the focus is the conclusion.

In this argument, the first two sentences are premises. That's what has started in the past and has been true for a long time. There's nothing new happening there, just the same old patterns. What has been happening for years is not the "case at hand," the pressing issue of the moment.

In sentence #3, we hear about something that sounds new: "eliminating the state requirement that legal advertisements must specify fees for specific services." This is a new element, apparently up for discussion right now, so this is the "case at hand." This is the controversial issue. This is where the focus of the author is. This is the matter under debate: everyone agrees on the premises, but presumably not everyone agrees with this author--he wouldn't have to make his argument if everyone else agreed with him! He is making his argument, his case, about this possible new change in the law.

Thus, BF #1 is something that preceded the case at hand, and the author expects that that pattern will not continue to hold in the case at hand.
BF #2 is a reason why that pattern will not hold in the case at hand.
This is precisely what (C) says.

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)

Thanks a lot for response. So, I do not have to take literally into instructions the premise "the first bold portion" and take as there is nothing exists around?

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 22

Re: Consumer advocate: It is generally true, at least in this state, that   [#permalink] 01 Nov 2017, 10:56

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 29 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

Consumer advocate: It is generally true, at least in this state, that

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.