GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 18 Sep 2018, 10:37

### 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

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

# The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising -MBeTrue

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 2680

### Show Tags

09 Sep 2013, 03:56
aakrity wrote:
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
_________________

| '4 out of Top 5' Instructors on gmatclub | 70 point improvement guarantee | www.e-gmat.com

Director
Joined: 10 Mar 2013
Posts: 550
Location: Germany
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 580 Q46 V24
GPA: 3.88
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)

### Show Tags

16 Feb 2015, 09:08
Good one !

So, we have here a must be true question, so we can use ONLY the information stated in the text.

The fewer restrictions --> the more lawyers who advertise --> they charge less $for that service than lawyers who do not advertise --> CONCLUSION: state removes restrictionsoverall --> consumer legal costs will be lower than if the state retains its current restrictions. (A) Some lawyers who now advertise will charge more for specific services if they do not have to specify fee arrangements in the advertisements -> reversed answer. If they don't have to specify fee arr.. they charge LESS (B) More consumers will use legal services if there are fewer restrictions on the advertising of legal services -> Argument delivers NO information about the # of consumers (C) If the restriction against advertisements that do not specify fee arrangements is removed, more lawyers will advertise their services --> CORRECT. No restriction -> more lawyers advertise ther services (see my reasoning above) (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 --> WRONG. This information is not stated anywhere in the argument. The arguments says only that those who advertise chage less than those who don't. (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 --> Arguments delivers no information about restrictions other than for legal services. _________________ When you’re up, your friends know who you are. When you’re down, you know who your friends are. Share some Kudos, if my posts help you. Thank you ! 800Score ONLY QUANT CAT1 51, CAT2 50, CAT3 50 GMAT PREP 670 MGMAT CAT 630 KAPLAN CAT 660 Intern Joined: 16 Jan 2015 Posts: 49 Location: United States Schools: Kellogg '17, ISB '17 GMAT Date: 05-20-2015 GPA: 3.06 WE: Business Development (Commercial Banking) Re: The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising -MBeTrue [#permalink] ### Show Tags 17 Jun 2015, 20:29 1 Argument : PART1 Fewer restrictions--> more ads--> charge less PART2 Fewere resrt--> (-----ANS------------)----> charge less Options : C fits best Kudos if you found helpful Intern Joined: 04 Apr 2015 Posts: 16 Concentration: Human Resources, Healthcare GMAT Date: 08-06-2015 GPA: 3.83 WE: Editorial and Writing (Journalism and Publishing) Re: The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising -MBeTrue [#permalink] ### Show Tags 05 Aug 2015, 23:27 What I feel is the word "overall" is being misread, as stated by the egmat expert. Overall = net change is towards positive. One lawyer may hike his fees because now ads don't need to carry the fee he charges if the state bans the law of putting fee with ads. But majority have lowered, i.e. those who were advertising might have continued to charge the same as they did before and those who newly started to advertise have lowered a bit. So basically the net movement of prices is IN FAVOR of the public at large, By this logic we can negate A and D easily (because the passage doesn't tell us the percentage of lawyers who have increased/decreased/not changed their fee. Hence C seems more inferential from the passage. Its clear and concise. Hope this helps! Senior Manager Joined: 17 Sep 2016 Posts: 283 Re: The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising -MBeTrue [#permalink] ### Show Tags 18 Sep 2016, 05:40 Thanks Chiranjeev. your explanations are always so awesome. thanks a lot Intern Joined: 14 Aug 2014 Posts: 2 Re: The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising -MBeTrue [#permalink] ### Show Tags 22 Sep 2016, 08:32 Could you please explain Why D is wrong, in eloborate. Regards Raju gvvsnraju JP wrote: OK here is why it is (C). Let's make this passage into a semblance of logic: Fewer restrictions on advertising = 1 More lawyers advertise = 2 Lawyers who advertise charge less than those who do not = 3 The first sentence of the passage now reads: If 1, then 2, then 3. In the second sentence: The state relaxes the restrictions (1) Costs will go down (3) What is missing in the logic of the second sentence, then, is (2) - why will the costs go down? According to our opening sentence, fees are lower when more services are advertised (2). This is what (C) says. Retired Moderator Joined: 14 Dec 2013 Posts: 3126 Location: Germany Schools: HHL Leipzig GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47 WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech) Re: The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising -MBeTrue [#permalink] ### Show Tags 22 Sep 2016, 09:15 gvvsnraju wrote: Could you please explain Why D is wrong, in eloborate. Regards Raju Could you please specify which part of the passage makes you think that D must be true. This will enable us to discuss your query effectively. Intern Joined: 06 Sep 2015 Posts: 33 Location: India Schools: ISB '18 (D) GMAT 1: 630 Q48 V28 GRE 1: Q165 V159 GPA: 3.1 Re: The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising -MBeTrue [#permalink] ### Show Tags 05 Oct 2016, 22:53 egmat wrote: vivek1303 wrote: 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 Hi Vivek, It's very good to see your detailed analysis - this is the way to go to understand CR questions. So, you are on the right path The other benefit of sharing such analysis is that an expert can figure out the exact problem in your thinking and provide you a solution that helps you not only in this particular question but also in other CR questions too. Let me now respond to your questions. vivek1303 wrote: *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..? "Overall" sort of means total; it does not mean each and every cost. So, when we say overall cost of living has come down, we mean that total cost of living has come down, not that each and every cost (eatables, cars, cylinders etc) has come down. Similarly, in this case, overall means total - includes both who advertise and those who don't - so, even if one of the categories reduces its charges, it leads to reduction in overall costs. Both of them need not reduce the charges. So, option D is not required for the conclusion in the argument to hold and thus, we cannot conclude it from the argument. GENERAL ADVICE Whenever you are confused about the meaning of a word, try to use that word in a regular everyday sentence and see what it means - that would help you in most of the cases. While solving CR questions, we tend to take very literal meaning (overall means all) of the words but if we can think of a regular everyday use of the word, that would provide us the right context and meaning of the sentence. vivek1303 wrote: 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) Option C is not an assumption. It is a direct inference from the first statement of the passage. The first statement says that "The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising of legal services, the more lawyers there are who advertise their services" So, we know from this statement that if we reduce restrictions, more lawyers will advertise their services. This is what option C says: If the restriction against advertisements that do not specify fee arrangements is removed, more lawyers will advertise their services It does not matter which restrictions are removed, we know if any restriction is removed, it will lead to more lawyers advertising their services. GENERAL ADVICE It happens to lot of us that as we move through an inference passage, we read them as in other question types - i.e. we try to get an overall hang of the passage. However, unlike in other question types where not every statement is critical and the overall understanding matters most, in Inference questions, we must read each statement very carefully because the answer statement could just be an inference or restatement of a single statement in the passage. Hope this helps Thanks, Chiranjeev Wanted to confirm, inference answer choice can be a restatement of a statement in the passage? _________________ What gets measured, gets managed Retired Moderator Joined: 14 Dec 2013 Posts: 3126 Location: Germany Schools: HHL Leipzig GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47 WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech) Re: The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising -MBeTrue [#permalink] ### Show Tags 07 Oct 2016, 06:34 pranav6082 wrote: egmat wrote: vivek1303 wrote: 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 Hi Vivek, It's very good to see your detailed analysis - this is the way to go to understand CR questions. So, you are on the right path The other benefit of sharing such analysis is that an expert can figure out the exact problem in your thinking and provide you a solution that helps you not only in this particular question but also in other CR questions too. Let me now respond to your questions. vivek1303 wrote: *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..? "Overall" sort of means total; it does not mean each and every cost. So, when we say overall cost of living has come down, we mean that total cost of living has come down, not that each and every cost (eatables, cars, cylinders etc) has come down. Similarly, in this case, overall means total - includes both who advertise and those who don't - so, even if one of the categories reduces its charges, it leads to reduction in overall costs. Both of them need not reduce the charges. So, option D is not required for the conclusion in the argument to hold and thus, we cannot conclude it from the argument. GENERAL ADVICE Whenever you are confused about the meaning of a word, try to use that word in a regular everyday sentence and see what it means - that would help you in most of the cases. While solving CR questions, we tend to take very literal meaning (overall means all) of the words but if we can think of a regular everyday use of the word, that would provide us the right context and meaning of the sentence. vivek1303 wrote: 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) Option C is not an assumption. It is a direct inference from the first statement of the passage. The first statement says that "The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising of legal services, the more lawyers there are who advertise their services" So, we know from this statement that if we reduce restrictions, more lawyers will advertise their services. This is what option C says: If the restriction against advertisements that do not specify fee arrangements is removed, more lawyers will advertise their services It does not matter which restrictions are removed, we know if any restriction is removed, it will lead to more lawyers advertising their services. GENERAL ADVICE It happens to lot of us that as we move through an inference passage, we read them as in other question types - i.e. we try to get an overall hang of the passage. However, unlike in other question types where not every statement is critical and the overall understanding matters most, in Inference questions, we must read each statement very carefully because the answer statement could just be an inference or restatement of a single statement in the passage. Hope this helps Thanks, Chiranjeev Wanted to confirm, inference answer choice can be a restatement of a statement in the passage? Strictly speaking, no, there has to be a logical connection, not just a restatement. (But sometimes the inference may be so obvious that it might seem to be a restatement.) Intern Joined: 15 Aug 2016 Posts: 10 Re: The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising -MBeTrue [#permalink] ### Show Tags 11 Jun 2017, 11:12 Will d be the answer if it is an assumption question instead of inference question? Manager Joined: 03 May 2017 Posts: 106 Re: The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising -MBeTrue [#permalink] ### Show Tags 17 Jun 2017, 10:00 vivek1080 wrote: Will d be the answer if it is an assumption question instead of inference question? Hi Vivek, While anything can be assumed, statement D is simply out of scope. The passage concerns the subset of lawyers who advertises, all other lawyers can be excluded. I hope I have answered your question. Best, Intern Joined: 12 Mar 2017 Posts: 45 Re: The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising -MBeTrue [#permalink] ### Show Tags 27 Jul 2017, 08:59 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. Goes against the information stem. Total opposite. (B) More consumers will use legal services if there are fewer restrictions on the advertising of legal services. By common sense, legal service is not a product for which demand and supply applies. (C) If the restriction against advertisements that do not specify fee arrangements is removed, more lawyers will advertise their services. This is actual rephrase. If the restrictions are lifted, legal costs will come down. And how will legal costs come down if more lawyers advertise. (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. We cannot predict the future. (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. We do not know what other types of restrictions are on other types of advertisements. Study Buddy Forum Moderator Joined: 04 Sep 2016 Posts: 1194 Location: India WE: Engineering (Other) The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising -MBeTrue [#permalink] ### Show Tags 05 Jun 2018, 19:36 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. _________________ It's the journey that brings us happiness not the destination. CR & LSAT Forum Moderator Status: He came. He saw. He conquered. -- Studying for the LSAT -- Corruptus in Extremis Joined: 31 Jul 2017 Posts: 365 Location: United States Concentration: Finance, Economics Re: The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising -MBeTrue [#permalink] ### Show Tags 08 Jun 2018, 05:13 adkikani wrote: 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. You look good here, too. I would suggest that with (E) you understand that it cannot be inferred because it is never mentioned. I assume by "out of scope" this is what you meant, but I just wanted to mention it. There are many great replies above as well. Many non-mods/experts post great replies that can help you with your process, if you have questions. I am always happy to respond, but give others a chance they just might surprise you _________________ D-Day: November 18th, 2017 Need a laugh and a break? Go here: https://gmatclub.com/forum/mental-break-funny-videos-270269.html GMAT Club Verbal Expert Status: GMAT and GRE tutor Joined: 13 Aug 2009 Posts: 2003 Location: United States GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46 GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51 GRE 1: Q170 V170 The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising -MBeTrue [#permalink] ### Show Tags 23 Jun 2018, 07:48 1 adkikani wrote: 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 wrote: 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 wrote: 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 wrote: 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 wrote: 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 wrote: 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 wrote: 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! _________________ GMAT Club Verbal Expert | GMAT/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (Now hiring!) | GMAT blog | Food blog | Notoriously bad at PMs Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal Reading Comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Sentence Correction YouTube LIVE verbal webinars Series 1: Fundamentals of SC & CR | Series 2: Developing a Winning GMAT Mindset SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS Need an expert reply? Hit the request verbal experts' reply button -- and please be specific about your question. Feel free to tag @GMATNinja and @GMATNinjaTwo in your post. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions. Sentence Correction articles & resources How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence? Reading Comprehension, Critical Reasoning, and other articles & resources All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for$29.99 | Time management on verbal

Manager
Joined: 10 Aug 2009
Posts: 56

### Show Tags

02 Sep 2018, 13:09
stolyar wrote:
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.

Note: This question is from OG10 -- Q#11. Q#12 of OG10 has same stimulus but different questions.
OG10#11 (Must Be True): http://gmatclub.com/forum/the-fewer-res ... 51118.html
OG10#12 (Weaken): http://gmatclub.com/forum/the-fewer-res ... 33526.html

First note down the premises(inputs) given in argument.

1. $$Restrictions =K*1/Lawyers$$ (fewer restrictions, more lawyers)
2. $$Adv Lawyer Charge < Non Adv Lawyer Charge$$

Conclusion=> $$Restrictions = M*Overall Consumer Cost$$ (If restrictions are removed, they will be less than before so overall consumer cost will go down, which means restriction are proportional to overall consumer costs.)

Now, looking at conclusion and 1st premise=> $$M*Overall consumer cost = K*1/Lawyers$$. So if cost will go down, number of lawyers will go up and hence C is correct.

if you look at A,B, D and E they are not at all supported by the given information and conclusion in the argument. for inference questions it is best to list down the info in the argument in this form to eliminate the incorrect choices faster.
_________________

Retaking gmat for second time, any re-takers please feel free to connect.

Re: The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising -MBeTrue &nbs [#permalink] 02 Sep 2018, 13:09

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 36 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by

# Events & Promotions

 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®.