Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases https://gmatclub.com/AppTrack
GMAT Club

 It is currently 27 Mar 2017, 17:35

### 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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising -MBeTrue

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics
Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

SVP
Joined: 03 Feb 2003
Posts: 1603
Followers: 9

Kudos [?]: 252 [0], given: 0

The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising -MBeTrue [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Jun 2003, 05:36
18
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

55% (hard)

Question Stats:

61% (02:40) correct 39% (01:42) wrong based on 1144 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): the-fewer-restrictions-there-are-on-the-advertising-og10-151118.html
OG10#12 (Weaken): the-fewer-restrictions-there-are-on-the-advertising-og10-33526.html
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

Last edited by doe007 on 01 May 2013, 20:28, edited 12 times in total.
OA Added
If you have any questions
you can ask an expert
New!
Manager
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Posts: 149
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 45 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

30 Jun 2003, 08:11
stolyar wrote:
C is right, but why? Explain it, please!

Stolyar , "NO". I am just not ready to belive, that you don't understand these CRs. You are so good already. Be frank, to you. I improved in CRs only by looking at your and brstorewala's reasoning at questions.

Tell me if you really require an explantion and i shall try to put in my words.
SVP
Joined: 03 Feb 2003
Posts: 1603
Followers: 9

Kudos [?]: 252 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

30 Jun 2003, 09:34
God consider that it is your turn to teach me. So, please explain this question.

Actually, I take 7 CRs correctly out of 10, but those three are either too easy, or too illigical.
Manager
Joined: 18 Jun 2003
Posts: 141
Location: Hockeytown
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 31 [5] , given: 0

Re: CR:LAWYERS [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Jun 2003, 21:51
5
This post received
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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.
Director
Joined: 20 Apr 2005
Posts: 585
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 209 [0], given: 0

The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising of legal [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Apr 2005, 16:23
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.

11. 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.

Please post answer and explanations. Thanks !
VP
Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 1487
Location: Germany
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 336 [1] , given: 0

### Show Tags

26 Apr 2005, 04:46
1
This post received
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
C)...

the argument says that the fewer restrictions there are on the advertising of legal services, the more lawyers there are who advertise their services,...this is similiar to the statement in C) that if the restriction against advertisements that do not specify fee arrangements is removed, more lawyers will advertise their services.
_________________

If your mind can conceive it and your heart can believe it, have faith that you can achieve it.

Manager
Joined: 20 Jun 2005
Posts: 148
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 126 [0], given: 0

The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising of legal [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Apr 2007, 18:02
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 in the passage 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 service.
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.
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 5061
Location: Singapore
Followers: 31

Kudos [?]: 370 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

04 Apr 2007, 18:17
C. If raising the restriction doesn't entice more lawyers to advertise their services, then the consumer is left with essentially the same pool of lawyers (that do advertise their services) and so legal costs does not become lower in any way.
Director
Joined: 14 Jan 2007
Posts: 776
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 142 [0], given: 0

The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising of legal [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Jul 2007, 06:51
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 in the passage 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 service.
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
5
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.
Intern
Joined: 25 Feb 2013
Posts: 8
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 10

Re: The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising of legal [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Mar 2013, 14:21
Does anyone know what level this question is?
Senior Manager
Joined: 16 Dec 2011
Posts: 452
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 210 [0], given: 70

Re: The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising of legal [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Apr 2013, 00:08
All duplicate threads on this topic have been merged.

Please check and follow the Guidelines for Posting in Verbal GMAT forum before posting anything.
Senior Manager
Joined: 16 Dec 2011
Posts: 452
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 210 [1] , given: 70

Re: The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising -OG10#11 [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Apr 2013, 05:23
1
This post received
KUDOS
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.

Correct answer is C.
Intern
Joined: 05 Mar 2013
Posts: 15
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 5

Re: The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising -MBeTrue [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Jun 2013, 18:31
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: 344
Schools: LBS '14 (A)
GMAT 1: 770 Q48 V48
Followers: 193

Kudos [?]: 375 [0], given: 4

Re: The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising -MBeTrue [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Jun 2013, 05:14
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
_________________

Former GMAT Pill student, now on staff. Used GMATPILL OG 12 and nothing else: 770 (48,48) & 6.0

... and more

Intern
Joined: 05 Mar 2013
Posts: 15
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 5

Re: The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising -MBeTrue [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Jun 2013, 11:49
thanks James, that is clear. i guess for CR the key is to be very strict and be almost literal, word for word
Current Student
Joined: 06 Feb 2013
Posts: 58
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing
GMAT 1: 750 Q50 V41
GPA: 3.1
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 24

The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising of legal [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Jul 2013, 01:21
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..!!
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 2033
Followers: 2150

Kudos [?]: 7468 [3] , given: 285

Re: Q#54 OG'13. To refer to the premise or the conclusion..?? [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Jul 2013, 03:05
3
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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
_________________

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

Current Student
Joined: 06 Feb 2013
Posts: 58
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing
GMAT 1: 750 Q50 V41
GPA: 3.1
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 24

Re: Q#54 OG'13. To refer to the premise or the conclusion..?? [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Jul 2013, 04:52
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: 2033
Followers: 2150

Kudos [?]: 7468 [1] , given: 285

Re: Q#54 OG'13. To refer to the premise or the conclusion..?? [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Jul 2013, 01:42
1
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
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: 42
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 26 [0], given: 38

Re: The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising -MBeTrue [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Sep 2013, 02:36
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
Re: The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising -MBeTrue   [#permalink] 07 Sep 2013, 02:36

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 33 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising of legal 0 26 Jul 2013, 03:05
The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising of legal 0 04 Dec 2012, 11:38
Even in a democracy, it is necessary to restrict the 6 03 Jun 2008, 05:43
The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising of legal 0 29 Apr 2011, 10:35
The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising of legal 0 10 Mar 2013, 14:21
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising -MBeTrue

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO 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®.