Last visit was: 18 Nov 2025, 19:04 It is currently 18 Nov 2025, 19:04
Home
GMAT
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Rewards
Chat
My Profile
Close
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
   1   2 
655-705 Level|   Inference|   Must be True|                  
User avatar
kornn
User avatar
Joined: 28 Jan 2017
Last visit: 18 Dec 2021
Posts: 357
Own Kudos:
93
Given Kudos: 832
Posts: 357
Kudos: 93
The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising of legal services 20 Apr 2020, 01:13
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
VeritasKarishma

An assumption question stem is different: Which of the following options must be true for the argument to be true? - looking for assumption
Here we are saying if the argument is true, which option must be true - looking for inference
Show more
Dear VeritasKarishma,

So the difference between the two is merely just "for the argument to be true" vs. "if the argument is true"?
I'm also not quite clear the difference between those 2 phrases. To me, both essentially say taking the argument as true.

The remaining part seems very similar to me.
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,265
Own Kudos:
76,982
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,265
Kudos: 76,982
The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising of legal services 21 Apr 2020, 23:07
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
varotkorn
VeritasKarishma

An assumption question stem is different: Which of the following options must be true for the argument to be true? - looking for assumption
Here we are saying if the argument is true, which option must be true - looking for inference
Dear VeritasKarishma,

So the difference between the two is merely just "for the argument to be true" vs. "if the argument is true"?
I'm also not quite clear the difference between those 2 phrases. To me, both essentially say taking the argument as true.

The remaining part seems very similar to me.
Show more

That difference is all it takes to completely change the question!
User avatar
SSM700plus
User avatar
Joined: 01 Aug 2017
Last visit: 08 Aug 2022
Posts: 164
Own Kudos:
194
Given Kudos: 420
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Leadership
Schools: ISB '20 (S) IIMA PGPX"20 (S)
GMAT 1: 500 Q47 V15
GPA: 3.4
WE:Information Technology (Computer Software)
Products:
My Reviews
Schools: ISB '20 (S) IIMA PGPX"20 (S)
GMAT 1: 500 Q47 V15
Posts: 164
Kudos: 194
The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising of legal services 01 Jun 2021, 04:47
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
doe007
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.

Show more


fewer restrictions --> more lawyers advertise
fee of lawyer (advertise) < fee of lawyer (not advertise)

if remove current restrictions against (advtisement that do not specify fee) --> then less overall consumer cost ==> more lawyesr would advertise

C is the right choice.
User avatar
kovid231
User avatar
Joined: 09 Oct 2018
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 29
Own Kudos:
19
Given Kudos: 23
Posts: 29
Kudos: 19
The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising of legal services 31 Aug 2021, 21:25
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
If the statements above are true, which of the following must be true?
Q.Type: Inference
Solving Strategy: Compare if an answer in 99% True or 100% true.
Obviously Wrong answers are: Restates, extremes.
One tip for such questions: Since these are Inferences they can come from any part of the passage and not just the conclusion.

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.

Less restriction on Ads for Legal service=more lawyers advertising.
Lawyers advertising specific service charge less than the ones that do not advertise.
Hence, state removes restrictions=legal cost will be lower than if they do not.

(A) Some lawyers who now advertise will charge more for specific services if they do not have to specify fee arrangements in the advertisements.
We cannot say that 100%. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. And maybe is not good enough for us.
(B) More consumers will use legal services if there are fewer restrictions on the advertising of legal services.
This is a different comparison. we do not know whether more consumers will use services, we know that more lawyers will advertise.
(C) If the restriction against advertisements that do not specify fee arrangements is removed, more lawyers will advertise their services.
Okay, this seems parallel to what the passage is telling us. Let's keep it.
(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 looks tempting as that is what does happen in the real world, but we can't take such leaps here since we do not know whether 'lawyers who don't advertise' will change their behaviour.
(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 don't know what kind of restrictions are on every type of advertising and if implementing those would have a positive or negative effect on lawyers.

With all this in mind. C seems the best answer as it is parallel to the passage and is 100% true
User avatar
sldisek783
User avatar
Joined: 29 Sep 2023
Last visit: 06 Mar 2025
Posts: 29
Own Kudos:
4
Given Kudos: 23
Location: Korea, Republic of
Concentration: Leadership, Strategy
Schools: Yale '26 (I) Tuck '26 (A) Sloan '26 (II) Cornell '26 (II)
GMAT 1: 750 Q50 V41
GPA: 3.6
Schools: Yale '26 (I) Tuck '26 (A) Sloan '26 (II) Cornell '26 (II)
GMAT 1: 750 Q50 V41
Posts: 29
Kudos: 4
The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising of legal services 26 Oct 2023, 14:52
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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?

For the overall consumer legal costs to decrease, the number of lawyers who lower the price should increase OR the lawyers who already lowered the price should further lower the price.

(C) If the restriction against advertisements that do not specify fee arrangements is removed, more lawyers will advertise their services.
- It is given in the passage that “the lawyers who advertise a specific service usually charge less for that service than lawyers who do not advertise”. So, more lawyers advertise -> more lawyers lower the price.

(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 don’t know if this is the case.

Posted from my mobile device
User avatar
djangobackend
User avatar
Joined: 24 Jun 2024
Last visit: 15 Nov 2025
Posts: 98
Own Kudos:
16
Given Kudos: 93
Posts: 98
Kudos: 16
The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising of legal services 14 Feb 2025, 05:37
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi GMATNinja sir,
I would humbly disagree that B is strengthener. my logic being - if supply of lawyers is more then for the costs to decrease the demand must also be less. if demand and supply are both higher then why would the costs decrease? I believe that if there is excess supply and less demand then naturally the sellers try to reduce the costs and sell their services/products. please let me know if my logic makes sense or where am I going wrong?

Thanks!!

GMATNinja
adkikani
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
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
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
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
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
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
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!
Show more
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,445
Own Kudos:
69,778
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,445
Kudos: 69,778
The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising of legal services 20 Feb 2025, 16:22
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
djangobackend
Hi GMATNinja sir,

I would humbly disagree that B is strengthener. my logic being - if supply of lawyers is more then for the costs to decrease the demand must also be less. if demand and supply are both higher then why would the costs decrease? I believe that if there is excess supply and less demand then naturally the sellers try to reduce the costs and sell their services/products. please let me know if my logic makes sense or where am I going wrong?

Thanks!!
Show more
Fair point! (B) may or may not strengthen the argument.

In any case, (B) is not something that must be true. (B) might be true, so (C) is a better answer.
   1   2 
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7445 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
234 posts
miag
188 posts