Legal scholar: A lawyer must not acquire literary or media rights to a story based substantially on information relating to the lawyer’s representation of a client. However, a lawyer may acquire such rights after the client’s legal matter is concluded. The rationale behind this rule is that the client’s interest in effective representation may conflict with the lawyer’s interest in maximizing the value of the literary or media rights. For instance, the lawyer might conduct the client’s criminal trial in a sensational, dramatic manner simply to pump up public interest in the client’s story. Therefore, the rights of a lawyer to obtain literary or media rights are ___1___ in order to ensure that the client’s legal representation is ___2___. Select for 1 and for 2 the options that most logically complete the legal scholar’s argument, according to the information provided. Make only two selections, one in each column. https://gmatclub.com/forum/download/file.php?id=75883

What the Legal scholar says is this: When a criminal trial is going on, the lawyer cannot acquire literary or media rights (someone writing a book or making a movie on the story of what happened) during the trial. If a lawyer did acquire these rights before the trial ends, he might be motivated to make the trial more sensational (to make more money from the book or movie based on it, for example, he may bring in a witness at the last moment during the trial to create a twist in the story for the movie based on the trial). Hence the client may not get "effective representation" in this case. The lawyer can acquire these rights after the trial ends. Hence, the rights of a lawyer to obtain literary or media rights are restricted in order to ensure that the client's representation is effective. "Effective representation" are the exact words used in the passage. There is no discussion of "rational representation". We are told that it is rational/logical to "restrict the lawyer's rights" to obtain "effective representation for the client." ANSWER: restricted, effective iishim

The difficulty level of a question on the site, after sufficient attempts, is determined automatically based on various parameters collected from users' attempts via timer, such as the percentage of correct answers and the time taken to answer the question. So, this is a 655-705 level question based on our statistics.

Last visit was: 18 Nov 2025, 22:41

It is currently 18 Nov 2025, 22:41

purplelemonsoda

Joined: 16 Feb 2020

Last visit: 31 Jan 2025

Posts: 32

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 44

WE:Accounting (Aerospace and Defense)

Posts: 32

Kudos: 97

[1]

17 Dec 2024, 23:41

Kudos

Bookmarks

if you're like me and got confused on blank 1...

passage tells us
Lawyers "must not acquire literary or media rights" during representation but may acquire such rights after the legal matter is concluded.
This means the ability to acquire such rights isn't completely eliminated—it's merely postponed.
Purpose of the Rule:

To avoid a conflict of interest during the representation period, ensuring that the client’s legal representation remains effective.

Why "Restricted" Fits:
The word "restricted" implies a limitation (in this case, a temporary one during the legal matter).
The passage explicitly allows lawyers to acquire these rights after the case concludes, so the rule doesn’t fully eliminate this ability.

Why "Eliminated" Doesn’t Fit:
If lawyers were never allowed to acquire literary or media rights, the rule would need to be absolute and UNQUALIFIED.
But it's like a temporarily rule... the passage clearly states they can acquire these rights after representation is over, which contradicts "eliminated."

so takeaway:
1. when seeing two words that have similar meanings, think about what distinguishes them..
eliminated means totally gone
restricted means limited
relationship between them is restricted is eliminated 'qualified'
in this case are lawyer's rights totally gone? no. so restricted!!!

Moderators:

Bunuel

Math Expert

105356 posts

kingbucky

496 posts