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

 It is currently 16 Nov 2018, 10:12

### 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

## Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in November
PrevNext
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
28293031123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
2526272829301
Open Detailed Calendar
• ### Free GMAT Strategy Webinar

November 17, 2018

November 17, 2018

07:00 AM PST

09:00 AM PST

Nov. 17, 7 AM PST. Aiming to score 760+? Attend this FREE session to learn how to Define your GMAT Strategy, Create your Study Plan and Master the Core Skills to excel on the GMAT.
• ### GMATbuster's Weekly GMAT Quant Quiz # 9

November 17, 2018

November 17, 2018

09:00 AM PST

11:00 AM PST

Join the Quiz Saturday November 17th, 9 AM PST. The Quiz will last approximately 2 hours. Make sure you are on time or you will be at a disadvantage.

# The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising -MBeTrue

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Joined: 16 Dec 2011
Posts: 325

### Show Tags

17 Apr 2013, 23:08
10
00:00

Difficulty:

65% (hard)

Question Stats:

62% (01:40) correct 38% (01:46) wrong based on 2409 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 2743
Re: Q#54 OG'13. To refer to the premise or the conclusion..??  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Jul 2013, 02:05
5
1
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.

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.

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
_________________

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

##### General Discussion
Senior Manager
Joined: 16 Dec 2011
Posts: 325

### Show Tags

19 Apr 2013, 04:23
3
1
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.

The argument states:
(1) Fewer the restrictions ==> more lawyers are to advertise
(2) Lawyers, who advertise, usually charge less
(3) Removal of restrictions ==> reduction of overall consumer legal costs

A) From the given information, there is no way to deduce that some lawyers, who now advertise, will charge more. Rather, the information implies that no lawyer would raise service fees.
B) There is no information on whether there will be any change in the number of consumers for legal services.
C) The argument says that removal of restrictions results in increase in number of lawyers who advertise. Statement in this option is in accordance with the argument. This is correct.
D) There is no information supporting this statement. It is possible that those lawyers, who do not advertise, will not lower their fees.
E) There is no information supporting the statement.

Intern
Joined: 05 Mar 2013
Posts: 13

### Show Tags

12 Jun 2013, 17:31
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?
Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Nov 2012
Posts: 280
Schools: LBS '14 (A)
GMAT 1: 770 Q48 V48

### Show Tags

13 Jun 2013, 04:14
2
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
Manager
Joined: 06 Feb 2013
Posts: 58
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing
GMAT 1: 750 Q50 V41
GPA: 3.1

### Show Tags

26 Jul 2013, 00:21
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..!!
Manager
Joined: 06 Feb 2013
Posts: 58
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing
GMAT 1: 750 Q50 V41
GPA: 3.1
Re: Q#54 OG'13. To refer to the premise or the conclusion..??  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Jul 2013, 03:52
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..!!
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 2743
Re: Q#54 OG'13. To refer to the premise or the conclusion..??  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Jul 2013, 00:42
2
vivek1303 wrote:
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 wrote:
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
_________________

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

Intern
Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 36

### Show Tags

07 Sep 2013, 01:36
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
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 2743

### Show Tags

09 Sep 2013, 02:13
1
aakrity wrote:
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
_________________

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

Intern
Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 36

### Show Tags

09 Sep 2013, 02:41
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
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 2743

### Show Tags

09 Sep 2013, 02:56
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: 513
Location: Germany
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 580 Q46 V24
GPA: 3.88
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)

### Show Tags

16 Feb 2015, 08:08
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.

800Score ONLY QUANT CAT1 51, CAT2 50, CAT3 50
GMAT PREP 670
MGMAT CAT 630
KAPLAN CAT 660

Intern
Joined: 16 Jan 2015
Posts: 46
Location: United States
Schools: Kellogg '17, ISB '17
GMAT Date: 05-20-2015
GPA: 3.06

### Show Tags

17 Jun 2015, 19:29
1
Argument :
PART1
Fewer restrictions--> more ads--> charge less

PART2
Fewere resrt--> (-----ANS------------)----> charge less

Options :

C fits best
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)

### Show Tags

05 Aug 2015, 22:27
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: 255

### Show Tags

18 Sep 2016, 04:40
Thanks Chiranjeev.
your explanations are always so awesome.

thanks a lot
Intern
Joined: 14 Aug 2014
Posts: 2

### Show Tags

22 Sep 2016, 07:32
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
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: 2990
Location: Germany
Schools: HHL Leipzig
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)

### Show Tags

22 Sep 2016, 08:15
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: 31
Location: India
Schools: ISB '18 (D)
GMAT 1: 630 Q48 V28
GRE 1: Q165 V159
GPA: 3.1

### Show Tags

05 Oct 2016, 21:53
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.

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.

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: 2990
Location: Germany
Schools: HHL Leipzig
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)

### Show Tags

07 Oct 2016, 05:34
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.

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.

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.)
Re: The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising -MBeTrue &nbs [#permalink] 07 Oct 2016, 05:34

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 29 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by