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

It is currently 19 Jun 2018, 12:49

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.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising - Weaken

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

Hide Tags

9 KUDOS received
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 26 Jun 2006
Posts: 433
The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising - Weaken [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 01 May 2013, 20:27
9
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.
(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.

For this question, refer to the-fewer-restrictions-there-are-on-the-advertising-og10-1357.html for a thorough question.


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.

Note: This question is from OG10 -- Q#12. Q#11 of OG10 has same stimulus but different question.
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

_________________

http://mba2010dreams.blogspot.com


Originally posted by sperinko on 15 Aug 2006, 17:53.
Last edited by doe007 on 01 May 2013, 20:27, edited 8 times in total.
OA Added
Manager
Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 25 Sep 2015
Posts: 133
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 700 Q48 V37
GPA: 3.26
Reviews Badge
Re: The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising - Weaken [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Jan 2016, 21:04
sperinko 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.

For this question, refer to the-fewer-restrictions-there-are-on-the-advertising-og10-1357.html for a thorough question.


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.

Note: This question is from OG10 -- Q#12. Q#11 of OG10 has same stimulus but different question.
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



If E is the answer. Isn't it actually denying the premise rather than the conclusion? I actually omitted this answer because of this reason. O.o
Anyone who disagrees?
Expert Post
Verbal Expert
User avatar
G
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 3200
Location: Germany
Schools: HHL Leipzig
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising - Weaken [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 05 Jan 2017, 21:09
The OA is correct and explanations provided in the thread appear sufficient. If there are any specific questions, please click again on the "Request Expert Reply" button and post your queries – closing this request.
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 30 May 2016
Posts: 20
Re: The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising - Weaken [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Feb 2017, 23:51
mikemcgarry wrote:
thangvietnam wrote:
very hard, I understand nothing. what is assumption we should prethink? why e is right? I understand the last posting more than the other complex posting.

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:
http://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 :-)



That is an excellent explanation thanks a lot
Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 22 Mar 2014
Posts: 144
Location: United States
Concentration: Finance, Operations
GMAT 1: 530 Q45 V20
GPA: 3.91
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising - Weaken [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Mar 2017, 13:01
sayantanc2k wrote:
The OA is correct and explanations provided in the thread appear sufficient. If there are any specific questions, please click again on the "Request Expert Reply" button and post your queries – closing this request.


Hi Sayantan,

I have a doubt with the OA given. As per me, D should be the best answer because the argument says lower restriction on advertisements encourages the lawyers to charge less. From this point, it is good to assume that higher restrictions put cost burdens on the lawyers which they are probably adjusting with their fees. This is justified, because in any business, you probably would need to adjust any cost incurred. Having this in mind lets check what option D says.

It says "Most lawyers who now specify fee arrangements in their advertisements would continue to do so even if the specification were not required". It says, even if there is an opportunity given to the lawyers to cut the advertising cost by not quoting fee arrangements, but lawyers do not agree to do so (for whatsoever reason that is not important). So lawyers will probably incur the same high cost of the advertisement even if the restriction is not there. But they will definitely adjust this cost with the fees. So fees may not be lowered even if the one restriction is not there, leading to the increase in overall consumer legal cost. So I guess that weakens the conclusion that "overall consumer legal costs will be lower than if the state retains its current restrictions".

Please let me know if am missing anything here.
The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising - Weaken   [#permalink] 04 Mar 2017, 13:01

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 24 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising - Weaken

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


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

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®.