Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases https://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 26 May 2017, 20:47

### 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 June
Open Detailed Calendar

# The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising - Weaken

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Joined: 26 Jun 2006
Posts: 441
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 70 [4] , given: 0

### Show Tags

15 Aug 2006, 17:53
4
KUDOS
53
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

45% (medium)

Question Stats:

68% (02:51) correct 32% (01:54) wrong based on 3023 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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.

[Reveal] Spoiler:
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.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

http://mba2010dreams.blogspot.com

Last edited by doe007 on 01 May 2013, 20:27, edited 8 times in total.
If you have any questions
New!
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4041
Followers: 1417

Kudos [?]: 6784 [8] , given: 84

Re: The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising of legal [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Dec 2012, 11:38
8
KUDOS
Expert's post
5
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4041
Followers: 1417

Kudos [?]: 6784 [6] , given: 84

Re: The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising of legal [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Sep 2012, 16:23
6
KUDOS
Expert's post
3
This post was
BOOKMARKED
voodoochild wrote:
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
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.

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

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 _________________ Mike McGarry Magoosh Test Prep VP Joined: 14 May 2006 Posts: 1404 Followers: 5 Kudos [?]: 187 [2] , given: 0 ### Show Tags 15 Aug 2006, 18:53 2 This post received KUDOS took way too long here fewer restr -> more lawyer ads more lawyer ads -> lower prices [Reveal] 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. Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor Joined: 16 Oct 2010 Posts: 7377 Location: Pune, India Followers: 2288 Kudos [?]: 15127 [2] , given: 224 Re: The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising of legal [#permalink] ### Show Tags 28 Aug 2012, 21:25 2 This post received KUDOS Expert's post voodoochild 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. 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! 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. _________________ Karishma Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor My Blog Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for$199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Manager
Joined: 16 Feb 2011
Posts: 192
Schools: ABCD
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 203 [1] , given: 78

### Show Tags

24 Aug 2012, 15:27
1
KUDOS
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!
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 7377
Location: Pune, India
Followers: 2288

Kudos [?]: 15127 [1] , given: 224

Re: The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising of legal [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Sep 2012, 22:06
1
KUDOS
Expert's post
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
voodoochild wrote:
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
voodoochild 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.

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!

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.

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

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).
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for $199 Veritas Prep Reviews Manager Joined: 06 Oct 2009 Posts: 104 Location: Mexico Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Finance GPA: 3.85 WE: Sales (Commercial Banking) Followers: 1 Kudos [?]: 147 [0], given: 4 Re: The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising of legal [#permalink] ### Show Tags 24 Aug 2012, 20:23 Voodo. Just a coment on your post. It will be better if you get rid of the colors in your question. Add colors in your analysis, otherwise you spoil the interest in solving the question. Also, that question was posted before, please search before posting new questions. Cheers Manager Joined: 16 Feb 2011 Posts: 192 Schools: ABCD Followers: 1 Kudos [?]: 203 [0], given: 78 Re: The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising of legal [#permalink] ### Show Tags 04 Sep 2012, 11:38 VeritasPrepKarishma wrote: voodoochild 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. 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! 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. 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 Manager Joined: 16 Feb 2011 Posts: 192 Schools: ABCD Followers: 1 Kudos [?]: 203 [0], given: 78 Re: The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising of legal [#permalink] ### Show Tags 04 Sep 2012, 20:25 mikemcgarry wrote: 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"!!!) ====> STATEMENT 1
(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"!!!) ====> STATEMENT 2

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.

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.

Manager
Joined: 16 Feb 2011
Posts: 192
Schools: ABCD
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 203 [0], given: 78

Re: The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising of legal [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Sep 2012, 04:50
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
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).

Karishma,
Where do you see support for 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). . I dont think so. Please see the time graph I have drawn.

Secondly, FACT#2 doesn't say
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
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).
but If we know that the lawyers don't reduce their fees when they BEGIN TO advertise These two sentences are poles apart. The conclusion is not about what happens when they BEGIN to advertise. The conclusion is about regionB in my diagram.

I am still not clear.....
Manager
Joined: 16 Feb 2011
Posts: 192
Schools: ABCD
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 203 [0], given: 78

Re: The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising of legal [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Sep 2012, 18:33
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?
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 7377
Location: Pune, India
Followers: 2288

Kudos [?]: 15127 [0], given: 224

Re: The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising of legal [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Sep 2012, 21:41
voodoochild wrote:
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?

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.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for \$199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Director
Affiliations: SAE
Joined: 11 Jul 2012
Posts: 508
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Social Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V37
GPA: 3.5
WE: Project Management (Energy and Utilities)
Followers: 44

Kudos [?]: 289 [0], given: 269

Re: The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising of legal [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Sep 2012, 23:22
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
_________________

First Attempt 710 - http://gmatclub.com/forum/first-attempt-141273.html

VP
Joined: 09 Jun 2010
Posts: 1393
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 130 [0], given: 859

Re: The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising of legal [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Dec 2012, 22:10
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.
Senior Manager
Joined: 16 Dec 2011
Posts: 432
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 214 [0], given: 70

### Show Tags

19 Apr 2013, 04:34
All duplicate threads on this topic have been merged.

Please check and follow the Guidelines for Posting in Verbal GMAT forum before posting anything.
Intern
Joined: 19 Feb 2014
Posts: 5
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Finance
GMAT Date: 08-08-2014
GRE 1: 291 Q148 V143
GPA: 3.77
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 4

Re: The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising - Weaken [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Jun 2014, 07:18
Option E is the best plausible answer after POE!
Took me 1:34 to do it...

Why E?
Since we have to weaken the argument concerning overall consumer legal costs, we are not really concerned about the restrictions by state. So eliminate A & B. Neither are we concerned about the quality here, so eliminate C. D was a bit tricky but as soon as you read onto E, you would be sure that 'lawyers who now specify fee arrangements in their advertisements would continue to do so even if the specification were not required' is simply out of the context in this, eliminate D.

Please give +1 Kudos if you like.
Thank You
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10363
Followers: 999

Kudos [?]: 225 [0], given: 0

Re: The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising - Weaken [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Jul 2015, 13:06
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
Intern
Joined: 13 Sep 2015
Posts: 22
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 239

Re: The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising - Weaken [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Dec 2015, 09:40
option E is worded awkwardly, but its the one that makes sense. If it had somply said "most lawyers who advertise specific services will not lower their fee..." it would have taken far less time
CEO
Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Posts: 2510
Location: United States (IL)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
Schools: Stanford '19 (D)
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V30
GPA: 3.92
WE: General Management (Transportation)
Followers: 26

Kudos [?]: 342 [0], given: 169

Re: The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising - Weaken [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Jan 2016, 13:20
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

brilliant explanation.

by POE, I narrowed down to C and E. My prethinked assumption was that those who advertise will provide services cheaper, and as a result, even those who do not advertise will as well provide services cheaper.
only answer choice E clearly states that the price of the services might not change at all.
Re: The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising - Weaken   [#permalink] 03 Jan 2016, 13:20

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 25 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
WEAKEN THE ARGUMENT 2 19 Dec 2016, 12:06
The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising of legal 0 26 Jul 2013, 03:05
1 Arguments to restrict immigration on the grounds that 3 03 Jul 2013, 23:01
The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising of legal 0 04 Dec 2012, 11:38
The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising of legal 0 10 Mar 2013, 14:21
Display posts from previous: Sort by