The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising of legal services

Question

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.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the argument concerning overall consumer legal costs?
A. The state has recently removed some other restrictions that had limited the advertising of legal services.
B. The state is unlikely to remove all of the restrictions that apply solely to the advertising of legal services.
C. Lawyers who do not advertise generally provide legal services of the same quality as those provided by lawyers who do advertise.
D. Most lawyers who now specify fee arrangements in their advertisements would continue to do so even if the specification were not required.
E. Most lawyers who advertise specific services do not lower their fees for those services when they begin to advertise.

Oa is understandable.

2 Questions :
(#1)
My question is that how could these two facts coexist?
fact 1) The lawyers who advertise a specific service usually charge less for that service than lawyers who do not advertise.
fact 2) Most lawyers who advertise specific services do not lower their fees for those services when they begin to advertise.
thoughts?

#2-
Things to note : #1 is about the present tense; #2 is also about the present tense but with a bit of time difference. Essentially, #2 happens before #1.
My understanding - initially, a greater proportion of lawyers who advertise their services don't lower their fees but later on, lawyers who advertise their services do. However, the issue is that the conclusion is about the future. Hence, if the lawyers don't lower their fees initially, wouldn't it be okay because the author is not concerned about what happens right now (fact #1 and fact #2) !

Thanks!

mikemcgarry · Accepted Answer

Dear thangvietnam I'm happy to help with this. :-)

Much of the above discussion concerns regions of subtle that are not really relevant to GMAT CR. Let's look at the individual question. 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. Fundamentally, this is a BAD argument. 1) first, it says, fewer restrictions on ads ---> more ads. OK, that's perfectly understandable. 2) then, lawyers who advertise are cheaper than lawyers who don't --- OK, this is a fact of the situation. The argument says, remove the restrictions, so there will be more ads --- that part is totally logical --- but then it makes the illogical leap --- if more lawyers are advertising, then more of them will be charging the lower fees, and that will save consumers money. This is a spectacularly bad argument. Basically, it is confusing correlation with causality. Lawyers who advertise have a high correlation with lawyers who charge the lower fees, but the former does not cause the latter. Here's a post about correlation if you want more info: https://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/gmat-integ ... tterplots/ As it often the case in a GMAT CR "Weaken the Argument" question, the prompt argument is seriously flawed, and it's very helpful to recognize that flaw before venturing into the answer choices. We know the flaw now, so let's explore the answer choices. The flaw has to do with the assumed connection between whether a lawyer advertises and how much that lawyer charges. Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the argument concerning overall consumer legal costs? A. The state has recently removed some other restrictions that had limited the advertising of legal services. This has nothing to do with whether a lawyer advertises or how much that lawyer charges. Furthermore, fewer restrictions would mean more ads, which the argument thinks is good, so if anything, this is mild strengthener. This is not correct. B. The state is unlikely to remove all of the restrictions that apply solely to the advertising of legal services. This has nothing to do with whether a lawyer advertises or how much that lawyer charges. As long as some restrictions are removed, then there will be more advertising, which the argument thinks is good: this is somewhat irrelevant to the thrust of the argument. This is not correct. C. Lawyers who do not advertise generally provide legal services of the same quality as those provided by lawyers who do advertise. A tempting answer. This has to do with advertising, but this brings up the irrelevant issue of the "quality" of the service that the lawyers provide --- this is not an issue mentioned at all in the argument. This is not correct. D. Most lawyers who now specify fee arrangements in their advertisements would continue to do so even if the specification were not required. Another tempting answer. In a way, this focuses on the wrong lawyers. We already know the lawyers who now advertise tend to have lower fees. In order for consumers to reap substantial savings, the consumers would need these already-advertising lawyers to stay cheap, and, more importantly, would need the non-advertising lawyers who start advertising to lower their rates. The fact that the already-advertising lawyers stay cheap provides weak support to the argument --- it certainly doesn't weaken it. This is not correct. E. Most lawyers who advertise specific services do not lower their fees for those services when they begin to advertise. Aha! This is the big one! When lawyer who currently don't advertise begin to advertise, they don't lower their rates. This is a directly contradiction of what the argument was assuming. They were assuming --- lots of advertising lawyers meant lots of cheap lawyers. This is saying --- that isn't the case. If a lawyer is expensive, then that lawyer stays expensive even when she advertises. More advertising is a not a magic panacea that will reduce legal costs across the board. This argument completely naiils the faulty assumption of the prompt, so this by far the best answer. Does all this make sense? Mike :-)

mikemcgarry · Answer

Voodoo This is yet another of a long series of questions of yours of the form " I understand the OA but ..." A question like that once in a while is perfectly understandable, but given the sheer volume of questions of this variety you concoct, I am almost certain that it actually detracts from your ability to focus on the core issues surrounding CR. Don't naively assume that more is better. As to this particular point -- which, I point out, is entirely trivial with respect to answering the question ------ Suppose, for simplicity, there are 100 lawyers in the town. 50 of them have traditionally charged $50/hr, a dirt-cheap rate. The other 50 have traditionally charged $150/hr, a more standard rate. Suppose, in this town, 55 lawyers advertise, showing their prices: All fifty who have fees of $50/hr advertise and display that fee. None of them lowered that fee before placing the ad. Five of those who have fees of $150/hr advertise and display their fee. Four of them did not lower that fee before placing the ad, but the fifth lawyer lowered her fees to $120/hr and then placed the ad. In this scenario, it is simultaneously true that: (1) The lawyers who advertise a specific service usually charge less for that service than lawyers who do not advertise. (More specifically, if you pick a random lawyer who advertises, there's a 50/55 = 10/11 chance that you'll pick someone with the lowest rate. A probability of 10/11 is very strong grounds for the word "usually"!!!) (2) Most lawyers who advertise specific services do not lower their fees for those services when they begin to advertise. (More specifically, if you pick a random lawyer who advertises, there's a 54/55 = 0.982 chance that you'll pick someone who didn't lower their fee in order to advertise. Again, a probability of 0.982 is very strong grounds for the word "most"!!!) Does all that make sense? Mike :-)

KarishmaB · Answer

Premises: Fewer restrictions leads to more lawyers advertising. Lawyers who advertise charge less than those who don't. Conclusion - If restrictions are removed, overall cost will decrease (because more lawyers will advertise and charge lower (questionable assumption but we will discuss this later)) We have to weaken the argument so we need to show that cost may not decrease. (A) The state has recently removed some other restrictions that had limited the advertising of legal services. We are talking about further reduction in restrictions for further reduction in costs. Some was done in the past is irrelevant. (B) The state is unlikely to remove all of the restrictions that apply solely to the advertising of legal services. We are not discussing removing all. No impact. (C) Lawyers who do not advertise generally provide legal services of the same quality as those provided by lawyers who do advertise. Quality of services is not being discussed, only cost. In any case it is good for our argument if the quality doesn't deteriorate with reduced cost. (D) Most lawyers who now specify fee arrangements in their advertisements would continue to do so even if the specification were not required. Irrelevant what they actually put in the ad. We want to reduce restrictions because then more lawyers will advertise. Whether they will put fee arrangements in the ad and what impact that has is out of scope. We are given that those who place ads, charge less. (E) Most lawyers who advertise specific services do not lower their fees for those services when they begin to advertise. What this says is that lawyers don't reduce their charges when they advertise. They advertise those charges that are already lower than others. Say there are 2 lawyers X and Y - X charges $500/hour for property cases and $250/hour for family law cases. Lawyer Y charges $400/hr for property cases and $300/hour for family cases. If they both were to advertise, X will advertise his family cases charges and Y will advertise her property cases charges.) So even if more lawyers advertise because of fewer restrictions, will overall cost decrease? Not likely. Lawyers don't reduce their fees when they advertise. Hence, it weakens the argument. Answer (E) Check weaken questions here: https://youtu.be/EhZ8FKkfy0k

u2lover · Answer

took way too long here

fewer restr -> more lawyer ads
more lawyer ads -> lower prices

Show Spoiler

1. C
2. E

MUST BE TRUE
(A) some lawyers??? as far as I am concerned they don't have to raise fees at all, especially all of them... which means "some" can't raise them as well
(B) OUT OF SCOPE... we know nothing about number of consumers
(C) If the restriction against advertisements that do not specify fee arrangements is removed, more lawyers will advertise their services.
(D) again... SOME LAYWERS... we don't know that... we are concerned about the whole group
(E) Type of arguments are OUT OF SCOPE... it just talks about specific example

WEAKEN
(A) ok... they did and WHAT HAPPENED? does nothing to the argument
(B) ALL RESTRICTIONS are not the issue... SOME RESTRICTIONS are...
(C) quality is OUT OF SCOPE... and if anything it strengthen the argument saying all the lawyer services are the same
(D) and what would happen??? does nothing to the argument
(E) Most lawyers who advertise specific services do not lower their fees for those services when they begin to advertise.

Answer E.

voodoochild · Answer

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.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the argument concerning overall consumer legal costs?

(D) Most lawyers who now specify fee arrangements in their advertisements would continue to do so even if the specification were not required.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the argument concerning overall consumer legal costs?
A. The state has recently removed some other restrictions that had limited the advertising of legal services.
B. The state is unlikely to remove all of the restrictions that apply solely to the advertising of legal services.
C. Lawyers who do not advertise generally provide legal services of the same quality as those provided by lawyers who do advertise.
D. Most lawyers who now specify fee arrangements in their advertisements would continue to do so even if the specification were not required.
 E. Most lawyers who advertise specific services do not lower their fees for those services when they begin to advertise.

Oa is understandable.

2 Questions :
(#1) 
My question is that how could these two facts coexist? 
 fact 1) The lawyers who advertise a specific service   usually  charge less for that service than lawyers who do not advertise. 
fact 2) Most lawyers who advertise specific services do not lower their fees for those services when they begin to advertise.
thoughts?

#2-
Things to note : #1 is about the present tense; #2 is also about the present tense but with a bit of time difference. Essentially, #2 happens before #1. 
My understanding - initially, a greater proportion of lawyers who advertise their services don't lower their fees but later on, lawyers who advertise their services do. However, the issue is that the  conclusion  is about the future. Hence, if the lawyers don't lower their fees initially, wouldn't it be okay because the author is not concerned about what happens right now  (fact #1 and fact #2)  !

Thanks!

KarishmaB · Answer

They can co-exist if lawyers tend to advertise those services for which they charge less than the average. Their fees is already lower for those services. They haven't decreased it and are not going to decrease it.
If other lawyers also start advertising for the same service, they will not lower their fees either.

voodoochild · Answer

But wouldn't the blue part violate Fact#1 - i.e. if lawyers advertise, they charge less? Fact#1 states that a majority of lawyers charge less for their advertisement of services. I am a bit confused....Please help

voodoochild · Answer

Mike,
Thanks for taking time to answer my question. The only reason why I give so much importance to every answer choice is that it helps me to test my understanding of the prompt, even though I am able to answer questions correctly. Secondly, I love solving these questions.

https://i49.tinypic.com/3449rti.png

I have drawn a picture that would help you to visualize what's going on in my mind. {The picture is a typical "dynamic system" that's taught in engineering courses. The idea is that a system generally stabilizes to a set point (or usual price) after undergoing through +/- cycles. } A picture is worth a million words. I have divided the time (x-axis) in two regions - initially when the advertisers don't lower their fees and the usual price of advertisers. The reason why I have divided the time axis in two regions is because the conclusion uses future tense that the cost will be lower. However, FACT1, as stated in answer choice, talks about what happens initially. Fact2 says that on an average, the lawyers' fee for those who advertise is lower than those who don't advertise. Hence, I am assuming that lawyers who don't lower their fees while advertising in the early stages have to lower their fees later on so that the overall average goes down . Otherwise, Fact2 will be violated.

That said and considering the above figure, your statement1, in my opinion, is not valid because FACT1 is about "usual" rate and  not when the lawyers begin to advertise. . In your example, you have alluded to the region A. However, in my opinion, FACT1 is about the "usual" rate that would be obtained when the rates stabilize (region B)

Similarly, your statement2 is valid because you are only considering the region when lawyers begin to advertise. This is correct because it deals with region A in my figure.

Also, I think that the conclusion is about a future tense "will." The author is not concluding anything about what happens when the lawyers begin to advertise. She is concerned about the long term rates.

Thoughts? Please help me.....

KarishmaB · Answer

The fact #1 does not give you the causal relation you are assuming. You are assuming that they advertise and hence charge less. The point is that they already charge less and hence they advertise for those services (Mike has used numbers to explain this point well). 
If we know that the lawyers don't reduce their fees when they advertise, we weaken the conclusion that the cost will decrease in the future if more people advertise in the future (when the restrictions are removed).

voodoochild · Answer

Mike and Karishma,
I am still thinking about your example. In your example, you have assumed that 55/100 advertise initially. However, the question says that as the restrictions are removed the proportion of advertisers increases.

For instance, say that there are 50 lawyers who advertise and 50 lawyers who don't advertise. Those who advertise, charge $50/hour, and those who don't advertise charge $150/hour.

Now, when the restrictions are removed, let's say that 30 people from those who don't advertise feel like advertising. As per Ans choice E), when they BEGIN to advertise, they will not lower the fees. Here, the overall legal costs didn't change at all. I agree with this point. But this whole case is true for the time when they begin to advertise (Region A in my diagram). Because FACT1 says that lawyers who advertise charge less, they will have to start charging $50 later on (hence, reduce their prices). Otherwise, FACT1 will be invalidated (Why? There will be 80 people who will be charging 50*$50 + 30*150 vs 20*150). This is where my confusion is. (It's shown by Region B) in my diagram. The conclusion is not about what happens when they begin to advertise. The conclusion is about the long term legal fees, in which case the overall legal costs will be lower.

Thoughts?

KarishmaB · Answer

I think you are reading too much into it. There is no difference between 'begin to advertise' and 'later stage'. As I said in the earlier post, learn from it and move on.

getgyan · Answer

Premise - 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.

Conclusion - 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.

Answer would be one which weakens the conclusion or strengthen that “if the state removes any of its current restrictions overall consumer legal costs will not be lower”

Option E weakens the conclusion and is our answer as even if the state removes any of its current restrictions overall consumer legal costs will not be lower

ChiranjeevSingh · Answer

Option D has no impact on the argument.

Even if I say the opposite of option D, that would have no impact on the argument. For example, the following statement has no impact on the argument:

Most lawyers who now specify fee arrangements in their advertisements  would stop doing so if  the specification were not required.

What does "specifying fee arrangements in their advertisements" have to do with their actual fee?

Nothing.

Don't very expensive lawyers specify fee arrangements in the advertisements?

Yes. They do.

The assumption you need to make to select this option is that if someone has to specify fee arrangements in the advertisements, he'll probably charge less fee. I don't think that's a reasonable assumption.

bv8562 · Answer

GMATNinja   MartyTargetTestPrep  I chose option D based on the following reasoning. The argument says:

if the state removes any of its current restrictions, such as the one against advertisements that do not specify fee arrangements  - this means there are some restrictions on advertisements and one of them is against advertisements that do not specify fee arrangements. This means one has to specify fee arrangements in his/her advertisement otherwise they cannot advertise their services. So, the argument assumes that those lawyers who are currently advertising their services ( means they are specifying the fee arrangement in the advertisements ) do so because of the current state restrictions. Based on this information option D ( Most lawyers who now specify fee arrangements in their advertisements would continue to do so even if the specification were not required ) does seem to weaken the argument. This suggests that the authors assumption was wrong and current state restrictions might not have any bearing on the advertising of legal services. So, even if the state removes the current restrictions most lawyers who now specify fee arrangements in their advertisements would continue to do so, and, therefore, the legal services costs for the consumers are not going to come down because the lawyers are going to charge what they have been charging before advertising their specific legal services.

Option E: Most lawyers who advertise specific services do not lower their fees for those services when they begin to advertise.

Option E, on the other hand, seems to weaken the premise " the lawyers who advertise a specific service usually charge less for that service than lawyers who do not advertise ".

When I read E I reasoned that even if most lawyers who advertise specific services do not lower their fees for those services when they begin to advertise, according to the argument, their fees is still lower than the ones who do not advertise. So, it has no impact on the argument.

Please help me understand where am I going wrong?

MartyTargetTestPrep · Answer

Notice that the argument is based on the idea that, if the state removes restrictions, MORE lawyers will advertise.

So, even if the lawyers who already advertise and specify fee arrangements will not change what they charge, the idea of the argument that the additional lawyers who advertise will, for some reason, charge less for services than lawyers who do not advertise. So, the plan could work even if even if the lawyer who already advertise will not change what they charge.

Furthermore, choice (D) actually strengthens the argument by indicating that removal of the restrictions will NOT cause the lawyers who already advertise to change what they are doing. They will still specify fee arrangements and won't stop doing so, and possibly raise their fees as a result of their no longer having to specify them.

Here's where you went wrong:

"their fees is still lower than the ones who do not advertise"

They may be, but being lower and decreasing are two different things.

The problem is that their fees may be lower than other lawyer's fees, BUT their fees will NOT DECREASE because of the removal of the restrictions. So, in that case, there is no reason to believe the argument's conclusion that "overall consumer legal costs will be lower." Rather, the lawyers may begin to advertise, but their fees, and consumer costs, will remain the same.

faaizmasood55 · Answer

I am not sure if my brain is fogged at the moment but I am reading "Most lawyers who advertise specific services do not lower their fees for those services when they begin to advertise."

"MOST LAWYERS WHO ADVERTISE" - should this be  most lawyers who don't advertise ?

ArnauG · Answer

The option that most seriously weakens the argument concerning overall consumer legal costs is option (E): Most lawyers who advertise specific services do not lower their fees for those services when they begin to advertise.

The argument claims that the removal of restrictions on advertising legal services would lead to more lawyers advertising their services and charging lower fees for the advertised services. However, if it is true that most lawyers who advertise specific services do not lower their fees when they begin to advertise, it undermines the assumption that overall consumer legal costs will be lower.

Option (E) weakens the argument by suggesting that the correlation between advertising and lower fees for specific services may not hold true in practice. If lawyers who advertise specific services do not actually lower their fees, then the argument's assertion that overall consumer legal costs will be lower due to increased advertising is undermined.

Ngocanhvy · Answer

Hmmm, I don't think it's a problem of correlation/causality here. Previously, lawyers who advertised their services often charged less to remain competitive because the prices were specified, allowing customers to compare. After removing the current restrictions, lawyers don't have to specify their fees, so there's no need to lower them anymore. Thus, the overall legal cost is unlikely to decrease.

Ngocanhvy · Answer

Hmmm, I don't think it's a problem of correlation/causality here. Previously, lawyers who advertised their services often charged less to remain competitive because the prices were specified, allowing customers to compare. After removing the current restrictions, lawyers don't have to specify their fees, so there's no need to lower them anymore. Thus, the overall legal cost is unlikely to decrease.

The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising of legal services

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising of legal services

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards