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

 It is currently 22 Mar 2019, 09:32

### 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

# The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising of legal services,

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

### Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 15 Aug 2016
Posts: 10
Re: The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising of legal services,  [#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: 92
Re: The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising of legal services,  [#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: 39
Re: The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising of legal services,  [#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: 1305
Location: India
WE: Engineering (Other)
Re: The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising of legal services,  [#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.

Feeling stressed, you are not alone!!

CR & LSAT Forum Moderator
Status: He came. He saw. He conquered. -- Studying for the LSAT -- Corruptus in Extremis
Joined: 31 Jul 2017
Posts: 489
Location: United States (MA)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
Re: The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising of legal services,  [#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

Need a CR tutor? PM me!

GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 2329
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
Re: The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising of legal services,  [#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!) | Instagram | 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 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: 65 Re: The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising of legal services, [#permalink] ### 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. Intern Joined: 22 Jan 2018 Posts: 46 Re: The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising of legal services, [#permalink] ### Show Tags 18 Oct 2018, 04:57 GMATNinja, I am also of the opinion that info mentioned in choice C is already there in the argument. Argument: The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising of legal services, the more lawyers there are who advertise their services Option C: If the restriction against advertisements that do not specify fee arrangements is removed, more lawyers will advertise their services. So, C seems to be just a re-statement. Then how is it correct? GMAT Club Verbal Expert Status: GMAT and GRE tutor Joined: 13 Aug 2009 Posts: 2329 Location: United States GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46 GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51 GRE 1: Q170 V170 Re: The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising of legal services, [#permalink] ### Show Tags 26 Oct 2018, 21:31 Manukaran wrote: GMATNinja, I am also of the opinion that info mentioned in choice C is already there in the argument. Argument: The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising of legal services, the more lawyers there are who advertise their services Option C: If the restriction against advertisements that do not specify fee arrangements is removed, more lawyers will advertise their services. So, C seems to be just a re-statement. Then how is it correct? It's correct because the question asks, "If the statements above are true, which of the following must be true?" Can an inference be a couple logical steps away from the information in the passage? Absolutely. Can it be a simple re-phrasing of something in the passage? Absolutely. (More on common inference errors in this video.) Every other choice can be eliminated, and (C) remains the only choice that's true according to the passage, so we're going to keep it. _________________ GMAT Club Verbal Expert | GMAT/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (Now hiring!) | Instagram | 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 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

Senior RC Moderator
Status: Preparing GMAT
Joined: 02 Nov 2016
Posts: 2441
Location: Pakistan
GPA: 3.39
Re: The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising of legal services,  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Nov 2018, 04:06
1
doe007 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

Hi Bunuel

This is Question # 54 in OG 2015 So kindly add the tag "Source: OG 2015/OG13"

Thank You !!
_________________

New Project RC Butler 2019 - Practice 2 RC Passages Everyday
Final days of the GMAT Exam? => All GMAT Flashcards.
This Post Helps = Press +1 Kudos
Best of Luck on the GMAT!!

Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 53792
Re: The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising of legal services,  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Nov 2018, 04:08
SajjadAhmad wrote:
doe007 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

Hi Bunuel

This is Question # 54 in OG 2015 So kindly add the tag "Source: OG 2015/OG13"

Thank You !!

_________________
Done. Thank you
_________________
Intern
Joined: 20 Nov 2018
Posts: 5
Re: The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising of legal services,  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Nov 2018, 08:46
Why d can't be the answer because according to statement overall charge is reducing and that is only possible when all lawyers will charge less

Posted from my mobile device
Senior Manager
Joined: 22 Sep 2018
Posts: 250
Re: The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising of legal services,  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Jan 2019, 11:52
doe007 wrote:

Project CR Butler:Day 30:Critical Reasoning (CR1)

For all CR butler Questions Click Here

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.

My understanding is below. Please let me know if there is a flaw in my reasoning.

Passage states that when lawyers advertise, they charge lower fees. Thus, to lower overall fees we should remove all restrictions on advertising. What do we need to know in order for this plan to work?

A) Since this choice uses "some" it still can cause an overall drop in prices
B) Not relevant. We're talking about lawyers lowering their prices, not whether or not consumers will use these services
C) CORRECT. If lawyers do not advertise, they will not decrease their prices. Hence for this plan to work, we need to confirm that lawyers will in fact advertise. C states this perfectly.
D) Same as A in the use of "some"
E) Not relevant. This is more on the legality of advertising than anything else.
Re: The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising of legal services,   [#permalink] 01 Jan 2019, 11:52

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 33 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by

# The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising of legal services,

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

 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®.