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

 It is currently 17 Dec 2018, 11:51

### 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

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 December
PrevNext
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
2526272829301
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
303112345
Open Detailed Calendar
• ### 10 Keys to nail DS and CR questions

December 17, 2018

December 17, 2018

06:00 PM PST

07:00 PM PST

Join our live webinar and learn how to approach Data Sufficiency and Critical Reasoning problems, how to identify the best way to solve each question and what most people do wrong.
• ### R1 Admission Decisions: Estimated Decision Timelines and Chat Links for Major BSchools

December 17, 2018

December 17, 2018

10:00 PM PST

11:00 PM PST

From Dec 5th onward, American programs will start releasing R1 decisions. Chat Rooms: We have also assigned chat rooms for every school so that applicants can stay in touch and exchange information/update during decision period.

# The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising - Weaken

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 25 Sep 2015
Posts: 109
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 700 Q48 V37
GPA: 3.26
Re: The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising - Weaken  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Jan 2016, 20:04
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.

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?
Retired Moderator
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 2949
Location: Germany
Schools: German MBA
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
Re: The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising - Weaken  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Jan 2017, 20:09
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
Joined: 30 May 2016
Posts: 17
Re: The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising - Weaken  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Feb 2017, 22:51
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
Joined: 22 Mar 2014
Posts: 130
Location: United States
Concentration: Finance, Operations
GMAT 1: 530 Q45 V20
GPA: 3.91
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising - Weaken  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Mar 2017, 12:01
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.
SVP
Status: Preparing GMAT
Joined: 02 Nov 2016
Posts: 1934
Location: Pakistan
GPA: 3.39
Re: The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising - Weaken  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Nov 2018, 03:17
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 http://gmatclub.com/forum/the-fewer-res ... -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): http://gmatclub.com/forum/the-fewer-res ... 51118.html
OG10#12 (Weaken): http://gmatclub.com/forum/the-fewer-res ... 33526.html

Sorry Bunuel to mention you again and again

This Question is not a part of OG 2015 rather another "Must be True" question with the same stimulus is appeared in OG 2015.

Here is the link of that question

https://gmatclub.com/forum/the-fewer-re ... 51118.html

Thank You
_________________

Final days of the GMAT Exam? => All GMAT Flashcards.
This Post Helps = Press +1 Kudos
Best of Luck on the GMAT!!

Intern
Joined: 20 Aug 2018
Posts: 2
Re: The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising - Weaken  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Dec 2018, 09:57
arunavamunshi1988 wrote:
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.

[quote="arunavamunshi1988"] Premise - Lawyers who advertise, charge less.
Conclusion - If restriction is removed, people would save on legal costs. But why?
Because, lesser restriction means more advertising, implies more lawyers would lower their fees as per the premise.

E states that when lawyers advertise, they don't lower their fees. Hence failing the conclusion. Hope this helps.
Intern
Joined: 17 Dec 2017
Posts: 17
Location: United States
Re: The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising - Weaken  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Dec 2018, 20:02
I think the correct answer choice is poorly written for one reason - it says "most lawyers who advertise (present tense) do not lower their fees for their services when they begin to advertise (present tense).... huh? Most lawyers who advertise do not lower when they begin to advertise? That doesn't make a ton of sense...

Had the question said that most lawyers who advertise did not lower their fees when they began advertising, that would have made much more sense.

Posted from my mobile device
Re: The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising - Weaken &nbs [#permalink] 06 Dec 2018, 20:02

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 27 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by