Last visit was: 19 Nov 2025, 10:50 It is currently 19 Nov 2025, 10:50
Home
GMAT
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Rewards
Chat
My Profile
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.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
   1   2 
655-705 Level|   Weaken|         
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,267
Own Kudos:
76,996
 [2]
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,267
Kudos: 76,996
 [2]
The contingency-fee system, which allows lawyers and their clients to 13 Jul 2022, 05:18
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
custodio
GMATNinja KarishmaB
GMATIntensive

(B) and (C) are "whether" sentences, so I think we should think both ways (yes or no).
contingency-fee option: CFO

(B)
-> if yes, people will not initiate a lawsuit when non-CFO (so, CFO will increase the lawsuits) -- WEAKEN
-> if no, people will initiate a lawsuit when non-CFO (so, CFO will not increase the lawsuits) -- STRENGTHEN

(C)
-> if yes, lawyers will take more lawsuits (because CFO makes them earn more) -- WEAKEN
-> if no, lawyers will not take more lawsuits (because CFO makes them earn less) -- STRENGTHEN

Any thoughts?
Show more

Note that the question is a flaw in the reasoning type of question. Hence, we have to say what the author's flaw in the reasoning is.

So read options (B) and (C) like this:
- the author fails to consider whether A is less likely to do B in case of C... etc

We have to worry about whether the author considered the two cases before arriving at the conclusion and whether they will lead to different conclusions if he did consider them.

The argument says that in a contingency fee system, since attorneys turn away many cases because they are not strong, number of lawsuits does not increase. (Normally, people may think that a contingency fee system will increase the number of lawsuits because anybody with even a small chance of winning may file a case because he doesn't need to pay anything if he loses. He pays only if he wins so either it is status quo or a win). The author says that doesn't happen because attorneys don't take such weak cases with low probability of winning.

But here is the flaw - the author fails to consider whether people with strong cases do not file lawsuits without a contingency fee system. Without considering this aspect, he cannot arrive at his conclusion. If people with strong cases file lawsuits in either fee system, then it is likely that number of cases does not increase under contingency fee based system. But if people with strong cases do not usually file without contingency fee based system (because they will need to bear the legal fees in the beginning at least and there is a chance that they may still lose the case) then number of lawsuits will increase under contingency fee based system.
This is what (B) says.

Now look at (C)
C. note whether, in successful medical malpractice lawsuits, the average monetary award after legal costs have been deducted is less under contingency-fee arrangements than otherwise

Did the author fail to note whether, in successful medical malpractice lawsuits, the average monetary award after legal costs have been deducted is less under contingency-fee arrangements than otherwise?
Does this impact the number of cases filed under the regular system vs under the contingency-fee arrangements system? Likely not hence we don't need to consider this in our argument. Hence, this is not the flaw in the author's reasoning.
User avatar
custodio
User avatar
Joined: 25 Jun 2018
Last visit: 03 Feb 2023
Posts: 39
Own Kudos:
10
Given Kudos: 46
Posts: 39
Kudos: 10
The contingency-fee system, which allows lawyers and their clients to 13 Jul 2022, 20:22
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
KarishmaB
custodio
GMATNinja KarishmaB
GMATIntensive

(B) and (C) are "whether" sentences, so I think we should think both ways (yes or no).
contingency-fee option: CFO

(B)
-> if yes, people will not initiate a lawsuit when non-CFO (so, CFO will increase the lawsuits) -- WEAKEN
-> if no, people will initiate a lawsuit when non-CFO (so, CFO will not increase the lawsuits) -- STRENGTHEN

(C)
-> if yes, lawyers will take more lawsuits (because CFO makes them earn more) -- WEAKEN
-> if no, lawyers will not take more lawsuits (because CFO makes them earn less) -- STRENGTHEN

Any thoughts?

Note that the question is a flaw in the reasoning type of question. Hence, we have to say what the author's flaw in the reasoning is.

So read options (B) and (C) like this:
- the author fails to consider whether A is less likely to do B in case of C... etc

We have to worry about whether the author considered the two cases before arriving at the conclusion and whether they will lead to different conclusions if he did consider them.

The argument says that in a contingency fee system, since attorneys turn away many cases because they are not strong, number of lawsuits does not increase. (Normally, people may think that a contingency fee system will increase the number of lawsuits because anybody with even a small chance of winning may file a case because he doesn't need to pay anything if he loses. He pays only if he wins so either it is status quo or a win). The author says that doesn't happen because attorneys don't take such weak cases with low probability of winning.

But here is the flaw - the author fails to consider whether people with strong cases do not file lawsuits without a contingency fee system. Without considering this aspect, he cannot arrive at his conclusion. If people with strong cases file lawsuits in either fee system, then it is likely that number of cases does not increase under contingency fee based system. But if people with strong cases do not usually file without contingency fee based system (because they will need to bear the legal fees in the beginning at least and there is a chance that they may still lose the case) then number of lawsuits will increase under contingency fee based system.
This is what (B) says.

Now look at (C)
C. note whether, in successful medical malpractice lawsuits, the average monetary award after legal costs have been deducted is less under contingency-fee arrangements than otherwise

Did the author fail to note whether, in successful medical malpractice lawsuits, the average monetary award after legal costs have been deducted is less under contingency-fee arrangements than otherwise?
Does this impact the number of cases filed under the regular system vs under the contingency-fee arrangements system? Likely not hence we don't need to consider this in our argument. Hence, this is not the flaw in the author's reasoning.
Show more

KarishmaB I see why (B) is correct but it is hard to eliminate (C).
The way I interpret (C) is:
If lawyers win the case under CFO, they will earn more money.
Does't this give incentive to lawyers to take CFO cases more (hence this increases the number of CFO lawsuits, weakening the claim that CFO does not increase the number of CFO lawsuits) ?
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,267
Own Kudos:
76,996
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,267
Kudos: 76,996
The contingency-fee system, which allows lawyers and their clients to 14 Jul 2022, 05:50
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
custodio
KarishmaB
custodio
GMATNinja KarishmaB
GMATIntensive

(B) and (C) are "whether" sentences, so I think we should think both ways (yes or no).
contingency-fee option: CFO

(B)
-> if yes, people will not initiate a lawsuit when non-CFO (so, CFO will increase the lawsuits) -- WEAKEN
-> if no, people will initiate a lawsuit when non-CFO (so, CFO will not increase the lawsuits) -- STRENGTHEN

(C)
-> if yes, lawyers will take more lawsuits (because CFO makes them earn more) -- WEAKEN
-> if no, lawyers will not take more lawsuits (because CFO makes them earn less) -- STRENGTHEN

Any thoughts?

Note that the question is a flaw in the reasoning type of question. Hence, we have to say what the author's flaw in the reasoning is.

So read options (B) and (C) like this:
- the author fails to consider whether A is less likely to do B in case of C... etc

We have to worry about whether the author considered the two cases before arriving at the conclusion and whether they will lead to different conclusions if he did consider them.

The argument says that in a contingency fee system, since attorneys turn away many cases because they are not strong, number of lawsuits does not increase. (Normally, people may think that a contingency fee system will increase the number of lawsuits because anybody with even a small chance of winning may file a case because he doesn't need to pay anything if he loses. He pays only if he wins so either it is status quo or a win). The author says that doesn't happen because attorneys don't take such weak cases with low probability of winning.

But here is the flaw - the author fails to consider whether people with strong cases do not file lawsuits without a contingency fee system. Without considering this aspect, he cannot arrive at his conclusion. If people with strong cases file lawsuits in either fee system, then it is likely that number of cases does not increase under contingency fee based system. But if people with strong cases do not usually file without contingency fee based system (because they will need to bear the legal fees in the beginning at least and there is a chance that they may still lose the case) then number of lawsuits will increase under contingency fee based system.
This is what (B) says.

Now look at (C)
C. note whether, in successful medical malpractice lawsuits, the average monetary award after legal costs have been deducted is less under contingency-fee arrangements than otherwise

Did the author fail to note whether, in successful medical malpractice lawsuits, the average monetary award after legal costs have been deducted is less under contingency-fee arrangements than otherwise?
Does this impact the number of cases filed under the regular system vs under the contingency-fee arrangements system? Likely not hence we don't need to consider this in our argument. Hence, this is not the flaw in the author's reasoning.

KarishmaB I see why (B) is correct but it is hard to eliminate (C).
The way I interpret (C) is:
If lawyers win the case under CFO, they will earn more money.
Does't this give incentive to lawyers to take CFO cases more (hence this increases the number of CFO lawsuits, weakening the claim that CFO does not increase the number of CFO lawsuits) ?
Show more

The data about successful cases will not give us whether lawyers earn more under CFO or regular system. The client may get less money if successful, under CFO because the lawyer is likely to take a larger sum but in case of the regular system, the lawyer will earn irrespective of whether he wins or loses. So what he prefers we cannot say. Perhaps he will prefer the consistency of regular arrangement and earn more average income under it or he might go for high risk high reward and earn more under it - we cannot say.
User avatar
rikinmathur
User avatar
Joined: 14 Sep 2019
Last visit: 31 May 2024
Posts: 50
Own Kudos:
15
 [1]
Given Kudos: 45
Location: United States
Schools: Columbia CBS '24 Sloan '24 Harvard '24 Wharton '24 Stanford '24
GMAT 1: 750 Q49 V42
Schools: Columbia CBS '24 Sloan '24 Harvard '24 Wharton '24 Stanford '24
GMAT 1: 750 Q49 V42
Posts: 50
Kudos: 15
 [1]
The contingency-fee system, which allows lawyers and their clients to 14 Jul 2022, 09:56
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja KarishmaB MartyTargetTestPrep I had trouble identifying the first statement as a claim/opinion of the author. Any ideas how we can be sure that this is a claim and not a fact?

“ The contingency-fee system, which allows lawyers and their clients to agree that the lawyer will be paid only in the event of success, does not increase the number of medical malpractice lawsuits brought against doctors.”

This makes it sound like a fact^ and then everything that follows is the authors reasoning for this. I understood it as having to expose a flaw in the reasoning in the rest of the paragraph.
User avatar
MartyTargetTestPrep
User avatar
Target Test Prep Representative
Joined: 24 Nov 2014
Last visit: 11 Aug 2023
Posts: 3,476
Own Kudos:
5,579
Given Kudos: 1,430
Status:Chief Curriculum and Content Architect
Affiliations: Target Test Prep
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Posts: 3,476
Kudos: 5,579
The contingency-fee system, which allows lawyers and their clients to 15 Jul 2022, 09:13
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
rikinmathur
GMATNinja KarishmaB MartyTargetTestPrep I had trouble identifying the first statement as a claim/opinion of the author. Any ideas how we can be sure that this is a claim and not a fact?

“ The contingency-fee system, which allows lawyers and their clients to agree that the lawyer will be paid only in the event of success, does not increase the number of medical malpractice lawsuits brought against doctors.”

This makes it sound like a fact^ and then everything that follows is the authors reasoning for this. I understood it as having to expose a flaw in the reasoning in the rest of the paragraph.
Show more
Hi Rikin.

You sort of answered your own question.

If what follows the first statement in the passage is reasoning that supports that statement, then it must be a claim that requires support, and thus it must be an opinion rather than a fact.
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,443
Own Kudos:
69,786
Given Kudos: 2,060
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
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,443
Kudos: 69,786
The contingency-fee system, which allows lawyers and their clients to 27 Jul 2022, 15:37
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
custodio
GMATNinja KarishmaB
GMATIntensive

(B) and (C) are "whether" sentences, so I think we should think both ways (yes or no).
contingency-fee option: CFO

(B)
-> if yes, people will not initiate a lawsuit when non-CFO (so, CFO will increase the lawsuits) -- WEAKEN
-> if no, people will initiate a lawsuit when non-CFO (so, CFO will not increase the lawsuits) -- STRENGTHEN

(C)
-> if yes, lawyers will take more lawsuits (because CFO makes them earn more) -- WEAKEN
-> if no, lawyers will not take more lawsuits (because CFO makes them earn less) -- STRENGTHEN

Any thoughts?
Show more
I think Karishma has you covered nicely as usual, but if you'd like a slightly different take on this, check out this post -- your assumption about (C) impacting the number of lawsuits is a bridge too far. Lawyers are incentivized to take potentially successful cases under both systems, and there's no indication that they are failing to take these cases under the contingency-fee system just because the payout is lower.
User avatar
ArnauG
User avatar
Joined: 23 Dec 2022
Last visit: 14 Oct 2023
Posts: 298
Own Kudos:
42
Given Kudos: 199
Posts: 298
Kudos: 42
The contingency-fee system, which allows lawyers and their clients to 19 Jun 2023, 11:44
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
The argument presented suggests that the contingency-fee system does not increase the number of medical malpractice lawsuits because attorneys turn away many people for lack of a good case. However, the argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it fails to address certain important factors.

Option A criticizes the argument for not specifying the criteria attorneys use to judge the merits of a medical malpractice case. This information is crucial in evaluating whether attorneys are effectively filtering out weak cases or if there may be other factors influencing their decision to turn away clients.

Option B criticizes the argument for not considering the possibility that, in the absence of a contingency-fee option, individuals with meritorious cases may be discouraged from initiating litigation due to the fear of incurring substantial legal fees. This could significantly impact the number of lawsuits brought forth, regardless of the contingency-fee system.

Option C questions whether the average monetary award after deducting legal costs is lower under contingency-fee arrangements. This information would help assess whether the system affects the compensation received by successful plaintiffs.

Option D challenges the argument's failure to consider the effect of the contingency-fee system on the number of lawsuits sought for reasons other than medical malpractice. This broader perspective is necessary to determine if the system has an impact on overall litigation trends.

Option E raises the issue of rising medical malpractice insurance costs, which could potentially influence the behavior of attorneys and clients in pursuing lawsuits. The argument fails to acknowledge this important factor.

Among the options, option B provides the strongest criticism by highlighting a potential flaw in the argument's assumption about individuals' willingness to initiate litigation in the absence of a contingency-fee option. Therefore, option B is the most valid criticism of the argument.
User avatar
siddharth_
User avatar
Joined: 17 Oct 2023
Last visit: 28 Oct 2025
Posts: 64
Own Kudos:
22
Given Kudos: 131
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1: 675 Q85 V85 DI80
GPA: 8.6
GMAT Focus 1: 675 Q85 V85 DI80
Posts: 64
Kudos: 22
The contingency-fee system, which allows lawyers and their clients to 12 May 2025, 02:20
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Reason for choosing B —>
Let us consider the following situation regarding the number of cases taken to Court.

Without CFS -
Good cases = 100; bad cases = 100
(Let)


With CFS -
Good cases = 200; bad cases = 10
Reason for increase in good cases - With CFS, I have to pay only after I win. Moreover, my case has been selected by a lawyer, which means chances of winning are high.
Reason for decrease in bad cases - Lawyers have rejected the cases.


Reason for rejecting C —>
With CFS, the reward that I get after a successful case is say $10,000.
Without CFS, I would have received say $1 million.

Now this gives me a reason to believe that fewer customers will choose to file litigation under CFS, which strengthens the argument.
   1   2 
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7443 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
231 posts
miag
189 posts