The contingency-fee system, which allows lawyers and their clients to

Hi Argp,

That is correct: option B gives us a reason to think that in the absence of a contingency-fee option the number of cases is likely to be lower than what we would have expected it to be if there were no concerns about large legal fees.

A. specify the criteria attorneys use to judge the merits of a medical malpractice case. Wrong. This statement doesn't weaken the argument presented

B. consider whether, in the absence of a contingency-fee option, even people with meritorious cases are much less likely to initiate litigation if they believe they might incur large legal fees Correct. This requires a comparison of contingency fee lawsuits vs other options to find the likelihood of litigation. This analysis should have been presented in the passage to bolster the hypothesis of the passage.

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. Wrong. The outcome of the case is not dependent on the kind of fee arrangement

D. consider the effect of the contingency-fee system on the number of lawsuits sought for reasons other than medical malpractice. Wrong. This would mean a comparison between apples and oranges. Different factors might affect lawsuit filing in other sectors and hence there is no direct comparison.

E. acknowledge the rising cost of medical malpractice insurance. Wrong. This statement doesn't weaken the argument presented

Thanks AjiteshArun for the kudos on the above post

Kudos from Experts are really encouraging:)

Hi, could someone please explain how in option C the costs are lesser for contingency-fee system?

Posted from my mobile device

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

What C says: the final amount lawyers get in contingency plan would be less in this plan than in non-contingency plan
Conclusion: Consequently, attorneys turn away many people who come to see them, for lack of a good case.

Reason1: If attorneys away many people because they get less monetary award on an average then why do we need contingency plan at first place.
Reason2: Secondly, if attorneys get less money, why would you reject many cases as you want to habdle as many cases as possible.
Reason3: it has added new elements: average ? so it means some may be higher, some maybe lower? If higher it weakens the conclusion , if lower then it strenghtens the conclsuon( means if award they get is higher then they should not reject and if they lower then they may reject).

The biggest reason to reject option C is:
It doesn't give me backhand informaiton of the conclusion. the story behind the conclusion.
C is more of effect but if you notice B it gives me crucual backhand informaiton of making or rejecting a conclusion/
B gives me WHY reasons. C gives me end result informaiton open to debate .( you can get high award or if even low amount then increase number of cases, end total is important)


i hope it helps:)

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) ?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.