Last visit was: 31 Oct 2024, 18:02 It is currently 31 Oct 2024, 18:02
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
655-705 Level|   Inference|   Must be True|                  
User avatar
doe007
Joined: 16 Dec 2011
Last visit: 03 May 2015
Posts: 235
Own Kudos:
808
 [209]
Given Kudos: 70
Posts: 235
Kudos: 808
 [209]
12
Kudos
Add Kudos
196
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Most Helpful Reply
User avatar
egmat
User avatar
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Last visit: 31 Oct 2024
Posts: 4,489
Own Kudos:
31,675
 [56]
Given Kudos: 662
GMAT Date: 08-19-2020
Products:
Expert reply
Posts: 4,489
Kudos: 31,675
 [56]
42
Kudos
Add Kudos
14
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
doe007
Joined: 16 Dec 2011
Last visit: 03 May 2015
Posts: 235
Own Kudos:
808
 [20]
Given Kudos: 70
Posts: 235
Kudos: 808
 [20]
13
Kudos
Add Kudos
6
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
General Discussion
User avatar
dhlee922
Joined: 05 Mar 2013
Last visit: 22 Mar 2016
Posts: 13
Own Kudos:
6
 [1]
Given Kudos: 5
Posts: 13
Kudos: 6
 [1]
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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?
User avatar
plumber250
Joined: 07 Nov 2012
Last visit: 21 Dec 2015
Posts: 220
Own Kudos:
928
 [4]
Given Kudos: 4
GMAT 1: 770 Q48 V48
GMAT 1: 770 Q48 V48
Posts: 220
Kudos: 928
 [4]
3
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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
User avatar
vivek1303
Joined: 06 Feb 2013
Last visit: 15 Oct 2018
Posts: 56
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 24
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing
GMAT 1: 750 Q50 V41
GPA: 3.1
Products:
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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..!! :P :)
User avatar
vivek1303
Joined: 06 Feb 2013
Last visit: 15 Oct 2018
Posts: 56
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 24
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing
GMAT 1: 750 Q50 V41
GPA: 3.1
Products:
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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..!!
User avatar
egmat
User avatar
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Last visit: 31 Oct 2024
Posts: 4,489
Own Kudos:
31,675
 [2]
Given Kudos: 662
GMAT Date: 08-19-2020
Products:
Expert reply
Posts: 4,489
Kudos: 31,675
 [2]
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
vivek1303
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).

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.

vivek1303
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..!!
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
avatar
aakrity
Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Last visit: 14 Feb 2014
Posts: 24
Own Kudos:
84
 [1]
Given Kudos: 38
Posts: 24
Kudos: 84
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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
User avatar
egmat
User avatar
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Last visit: 31 Oct 2024
Posts: 4,489
Own Kudos:
31,675
 [1]
Given Kudos: 662
GMAT Date: 08-19-2020
Products:
Expert reply
Posts: 4,489
Kudos: 31,675
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
aakrity
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
avatar
aakrity
Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Last visit: 14 Feb 2014
Posts: 24
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 38
Posts: 24
Kudos: 84
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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
User avatar
egmat
User avatar
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Last visit: 31 Oct 2024
Posts: 4,489
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 662
GMAT Date: 08-19-2020
Products:
Expert reply
Posts: 4,489
Kudos: 31,675
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
aakrity
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
User avatar
adkikani
User avatar
IIM School Moderator
Joined: 04 Sep 2016
Last visit: 24 Dec 2023
Posts: 1,246
Own Kudos:
1,277
 [1]
Given Kudos: 1,207
Location: India
WE:Engineering (Other)
Posts: 1,246
Kudos: 1,277
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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.

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.

↓ 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.

Quote:
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.


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.

Quote:
If the statements above are true, which of the following must be true?
This suggests I need to infer from the statements above.

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.
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.

Quote:
(B) More consumers will use legal services if there are fewer restrictions on the advertising of legal services.
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.

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


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.
I can not infer about the group in underlined portion.

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
The underlined portion is completely out of scope of topic discussed in argument.
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 31 Oct 2024
Posts: 7,108
Own Kudos:
65,554
 [7]
Given Kudos: 1,853
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,108
Kudos: 65,554
 [7]
3
Kudos
Add Kudos
4
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
adkikani
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
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
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
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
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
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
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!
User avatar
Manukaran
Joined: 22 Jan 2018
Last visit: 06 Jan 2020
Posts: 36
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 12
Posts: 36
Kudos: 6
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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?
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 31 Oct 2024
Posts: 7,108
Own Kudos:
65,554
 [1]
Given Kudos: 1,853
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,108
Kudos: 65,554
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Manukaran
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. :)
User avatar
vanam52923
Joined: 17 Jul 2017
Last visit: 22 Jun 2024
Posts: 205
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 228
Posts: 205
Kudos: 99
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
doe007
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.

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


(A) Some lawyers who now advertise will charge more for specific services if they do not have to specify fee arrangements in the advertisements.

(B) More consumers will use legal services if there are fewer restrictions on the advertising of legal services.

(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.

(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.

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
User avatar
KarishmaB
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 31 Oct 2024
Posts: 15,420
Own Kudos:
69,198
 [2]
Given Kudos: 446
Location: Pune, India
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 15,420
Kudos: 69,198
 [2]
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
vanam52923
doe007
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.

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


(A) Some lawyers who now advertise will charge more for specific services if they do not have to specify fee arrangements in the advertisements.

(B) More consumers will use legal services if there are fewer restrictions on the advertising of legal services.

(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.

(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.

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.
User avatar
kornn
Joined: 28 Jan 2017
Last visit: 18 Dec 2021
Posts: 361
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 832
Posts: 361
Kudos: 82
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Dear AjiteshArun VeritasKarishma GMATGuruNY IanStewart VeritasPrepBrian MartyTargetTestPrep ccooley egmat,

Quote:
If the statements above are true, which of the following must be true?
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:
GMATNinja
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.
According to the original question stem, "statements above" already include conclusion!
User avatar
KarishmaB
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 31 Oct 2024
Posts: 15,420
Own Kudos:
69,198
 [2]
Given Kudos: 446
Location: Pune, India
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 15,420
Kudos: 69,198
 [2]
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
varotkorn
Dear AjiteshArun VeritasKarishma GMATGuruNY IanStewart VeritasPrepBrian MartyTargetTestPrep ccooley egmat,

Quote:
If the statements above are true, which of the following must be true?
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:
GMATNinja
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.
According to the original question stem, "statements above" already include conclusion!

The question stem is often used by inference questions.

Quote:
If the statements above are true,

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.

Quote:
which of the following must be true?

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
 1   2   
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7108 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
234 posts