Consumer advocate: It is generally true, at least in this state, that

Question

Consumer advocate: It is generally true, at least in this state, that lawyers who advertise a specific service charge less for that service than lawyers who do not advertise. It is also true that  each time restrictions on the advertising of legal services have been eliminated, the number of lawyers advertising their services has increased and legal costs to consumers have declined in consequence.  However, eliminating the state requirement that legal advertisements must specify fees for specific services would almost certainly increase rather than further reduce consumer’s legal costs. Lawyers would no longer have an incentive to lower their fees when they begin advertising and  if no longer required to specify fee arrangements, many lawyers who now advertise would increase their fees.

In the consumer advocate’s argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

(A) The first is a generalization that the consumer advocate accepts as true; the second is presented as a consequence that follows from the truth of that generalization.

(B) The first is a pattern of cause and effect that the consumer advocate argues will be repeated in the case at issue; the second acknowledges a circumstance in which that pattern would not hold.

(C) The first is pattern of cause and effect that the consumer advocate predicts will not hold in the case at issue; the second offers a consideration in support of that prediction.

(D) The first is evidence that the consumer advocate offers in support of a certain prediction; the second is that prediction.

(E) The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the main position that the consumer advocate defends; the second is that position.

GMATPrep Code  :  VCR07545

souvik101990 · Accepted Answer

Analyzing a Critical Reasoning Boldface Question

- Form the Manhattan GMAT Blog
Try this problem out! Give yourself about 2 minutes (though it’s okay to stretch to 2.5 minutes on a long one like this as long as you are making progress.)

Consumer advocate: It is generally true, at least in this state, that lawyers who advertise a specific service charge less for that service than lawyers who do not advertise. It is also true that each time restrictions on the advertising of legal services have been eliminated, the number of lawyers advertising their services has increased and legal costs to consumers have declined in consequence. However, eliminating the state requirement that legal advertisements must specify fees for specific services would almost certainly increase rather than further reduce consumers’ legal costs. Lawyers would no longer have an incentive to lower their fees when they begin advertising and if no longer required to specify fee arrangements, many lawyers who now advertise would increase their fees.

In the consumer advocate’s argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

(A) The first is a generalization that the consumer advocate accepts as true; the second is presented as a consequence that follows from the truth of that generalization.

(B) The first is a pattern of cause and effect that the consumer advocate argues will be repeated in the case at issue; the second acknowledges a circumstance in which that pattern would not hold.

(C) The first is a pattern of cause and effect that the consumer advocate predicts will not hold in the case at issue; the second offers a consideration in support of that prediction.

(D) The first is evidence that the consumer advocate offers in support of a certain prediction; the second is that prediction.

(E) The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the main position that the consumer advocate defends; the second is that position.

Step 1: Identify the Question

The argument itself contains the most common clue for a Describe the Role question: boldface font in the text. This clue doesn’t always exist but it is usually there. The question stem also signals the type by asking for the role played by the two portions in boldface.

Step 2: Deconstruct the Argument

All right, this is a Role question. The argument will contain a conclusion, and the boldface portions will relate to the conclusion in one of three broad ways:

The boldface text could be the conclusion.
The boldface text could support the conclusion.
The boldface text could be anything else (including neutral background), though most commonly it will be either counter-premise or a counter-conclusion.

Here’s what I thought and wrote while I did the problem. Your own thought process won’t be exactly the same as mine and, of course, your notes will probably look quite different, since we all have our own ways of abbreviating things. (Note: R = Describe the Role)

Step 3: State the Goal

This is a Role question, so I have to figure out what roles the two boldface statements play.

The first one does NOT go along with the CA’s argument, so it must be category 3. The information is interesting: the CA acknowledges that it is generally true, but just doesn’t think that it applies to one specific circumstance.

The second boldface supports the CA’s conclusion.

Work from Wrong to Right

The correct answer is (C).

Note that the language of the answer choices is very confusing. Try to keep the three main categories in mind: (1) it IS the conclusion, (2) it SUPPORTS the conclusion, (3) it’s anything other than 1 or 2. That classification will make it easier to get rid of some answer choices, even if you don’t fully follow the convoluted language.

Take-aways for CR Role questions:

(1) The question stem will usually include the word role and will almost always (but not always!) include bold font in the argument.

(2) Once you realize you have a Role question, classify the boldface font into one of the three categories discussed above.

(3) If you struggle to understand what a choice says, ask yourself whether the language most likely goes with category 1, 2, or 3. That might be enough to help you eliminate the answer.

Show Spoiler

Attachment:

00000325.png [ 145.5 KiB | Viewed 22015 times ]

Attachment:

00000326.png [ 129.92 KiB | Viewed 22012 times ]

LakerFan24 · Answer

Consumer advocate: It is generally true, at least in this state, that lawyers who advertise a specific service charge less for that service than lawyers who do not advertise. It is also true that each time restrictions on the advertising of legal services have been eliminated, the number of lawyers advertising their services has increased and legal costs to consumers have declined in consequence. However, eliminating the state requirement that legal advertisements must specify fees for specific services would almost certainly increase rather than further reduce consumer’s legal costs. Lawyers would no longer have an incentive to lower their fees when they begin advertising and if no longer required to specify fee arrangements, many lawyers who now advertise would increase their fees.

In the consumer advocate’s argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

IDENTIFY CONCLUSION: However, eliminating the state requirement that legal advertisements must specify fees for specific services would almost certainly increase rather than further reduce consumer’s legal costs.
> BF2 = premise supporting the Conclusion

(A) The first is a generalization that the consumer advocate accepts as true; the second is presented as a consequence that follows from the truth of that generalization.
- BF2 is NOT a consequence...

(B) The first is a pattern of cause and effect that the consumer advocate argues will be repeated in the case at issue; the second acknowledges a circumstance in which that pattern would not hold.
- BF2 does not acknowledge a circumstance in which a pattern (identified by BF1) does not hold

(C) The first is pattern of cause and effect that the consumer advocate predicts will not hold in the case at issue; the second offers a consideration in support of that prediction.
- correct as is. pattern will not hold b/c author goes on to say that eliminating requirements would increase costs (instead of eliminating them). also, BF2 is supporting the prediction (conclusion)

(D) The first is evidence that the consumer advocate offers in support of a certain prediction; the second is that prediction.
- BF2 is not a conclusion or prediction -- it is evidence/a premise

(E) The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the main position that the consumer advocate defends; the second is that position.
- BF2 is not a conclusion

What is great about this question is once you've identified the Conclusion, it's easy to spot what BF2 does (support the conclusion). Examine the A/C -- all of the incorrect ones do not categorize BF2 properly.

Kudos please if helpful

gmat6nplus1 · Answer

Consumer advocate: it is generally true, at least in this state, that lawyers who advertise a specific service
charge less for that service than lawyers who do not advertise. It is also true that each time restrictions on the
advertising of legal services have been eliminated, the number of lawyers advertising their services has
increased and legal costs to consumers have declined in consequence. However, eliminating the state
requirement that legal advertisements must specify fees for specific services would almost certainly increase
rather than further reduce consumer’s legal costs. Lawyers would no longer have an incentive to lower their fees
when they begin advertising and if no longer required to specify fee arrangements, many lawyers who now
advertise would increase their fees.

The conclusion represents the main thought of the author, indicators may help, but once you reach the end of the argument you should already have a clear idea about the author's position. That idea is the main point and the author's conclusion.

- General statemet
B1 - Adds more to the general statement
- Argues against boldface B1 (main idea of the passage)
B2 - supports the main idea

Additionally: B1 and B2 follow an opposite direction. Since B2 supports the main point and the main point argues against B1.

In the consumer advocate’s argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

(A) The first is a generalization that the consumer advocate accepts as true; the second is presented as a
consequence that follows from the truth of that generalization.
 B1 and B2 follow an opposite direction. wrong 
(B) The first is a pattern of cause and effect that the consumer advocate argues will be repeated in the case at
issue; the second acknowledges a circumstance in which that pattern would not hold.
 the second supports the main point. wrong 
(C) The first is pattern of cause and effect that the consumer advocate predicts will not hold in the case at issue;
the second offers a consideration in support of that prediction.
 Looks good, "prediction" is out main point, B2 supports the main point. B1 is indeed a pattern of cause and effect that won't hold true. 
(D) The first is evidence that the consumer advocate offers in support of a certain prediction; the second is that
prediction.
 B1 and B2 take a different direction. wrong 
(E) The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the main position that the consumer advocate
defends; the second is that position.
 The second supports the main position, it is not the main position itself. wrong

P.S. Timing is important but don't get stressed too much, Boldface are hard questions especially for non-natives like me. Figure out an approach that leads you to the correct answer and be consistent with it.

TooLong150 · Answer

I picked (D) over (C), because I didn't agree with the fact that BF 2 was a consideration.
How is BF2 a consideration?

mikemcgarry · Answer

Dear TooLong150, The word " consideration " is a funny word. In colloquial speech, it is used to mean " courtesy " --- to show someone some consideration . That usage is far too casual for the GMAT. In the formal sense, the word " consideration " means: a thought, an idea, an intelligent perspective, or an argument. Any well-thought out statement could be called a "consideration", so in that sense, virtually every sentence that appears in the GMAT CR could be called a "consideration." Does this make sense? Mike :-)

dheeraj24 · Answer

Hi Mike,

I have a doubt regarding boldfaced CR question.

Do we need to evaluate what role the two bold faced statements play with regard to Conclusion ?
(or)
Do we have any other method to evaluate these kind of Questions.

As far as this question is concerned, my method of solving the question is this

If we consider "eliminating the state requirement that legal advertisements must specify fees for specific services would almost certainly increase rather than further reduce consumer’s legal costs" as Conclusion and then evaluate the two bold faced Statements then we get

a) first bold faced opposes (or) does not hold true
b) Second bold faced statement is in favor (or) Supports the conclusion.

Hence Answer is C.

Mike , could you please tell whether my approach is correct or wrong.

Thanks in advance

mikemcgarry · Answer

Dear dheeraj24 , I'm happy to respond. First of all, your approach in this question is correct. The sentence you quoted I would call the conclusion, and I agree with your interpretation of the two BF statements. I would say: in every every every GMAT CR, you should know exactly what the conclusion is. If you don't understand what the conclusion of an argument is, then you don't understand the argument. More than that, you should always understand the role of every single sentence in every single argument, and how it relates to the conclusion. Don't think of boldface questions as a separate category ---- they are simply testing a skill that you should be applying 100% of the time in every sentence of every argument. If you find arguments in which you don't understand the roles of individual sentences, those are fantastic questions to post here on GMAT Club and ask experts for their advice. You are always more than welcome to send me a p.m. asking for my input. Mike :-)

mcelroytutoring · Answer

Attached is a visual that should help.

mikemcgarry · Answer

The crucial distinction between (B) & (C) concerns what exactly is the "case at issue"?

The way to think about this is to step back and apply a central RC strategy. What's the main idea of the prompt argument? In other words, if some author wrote this in an article in a journal or magazine, what would have been that author's principal concern?

Well, in the past, there was a clear pattern: fewer restrictions --> more ads --> more consumer savings. Clear cause & effect.

Now, when they abrogate the requirement for displaying fees, consumer prices will rise. Clearly, the author, a consumer advocate, is concerned about this, and this prompt may well be part of a larger argument about why we should NOT get rid of the requirement for lawyers to display their fees---that would likely be a consumer advocate's larger agenda with respect to this issue. Clearly, this consumer advocate is on the lookout for consumers and is bothered about the fact that, if this requirement is lifted, the consumers will be paying more and more. Therefore, this is the "case at issue," the thing that really concerns the author.

That's the gigantic problem with (B). The "case at issue," namely what would happen if the fee requirement is abolished, is clearly a case in which the past pattern would no longer hold. Option (B) mistakenly calls some other unspecified concern the "case at issue," and treats this important issue, the author's main point, as a throwaway extra detail. It entirely misses the point of what is important to the author.

Choice (C) gets it right: the cause & effect pattern discussed in the first BF statement will NOT play out in the "case at hand." The "case at hand" that deeply concerns this author is the case in which fees would go up, and the second BF "offers a consideration in support of" the prediction that fees could go up. The best answer is (C).

This question, in a way, is almost a hybrid between CR and RC, and in many ways, we have to have sharp RC skills to analyze the prompt argument. It's not a trivial detail to note that the speaker is a "consumer advocate," i.e. someone who is deeply concerned with what would be fair for all the good hard-working people who are struggling to get by. Knowing that the speaker comes from that perspective is crucial for identifying the "case at issue." For success on the GMAT Verbal, you have to have this general sense of what kinds of professionals are for or against what kinds of things. What do consumer advocates want? What do advertisers want? What do consulting firms want?" What do politicians want? etc. etc. It's very important to develop this real-world intuition. See:
GMAT Critical Reasoning and Outside Knowledge

Does all this make sense?
Mike

Erjan_S · Answer

I am not satisfied with explanation at all. I think that this question is hard because choices B and C are almost identical, however, I root for choice B because in my opinion there is nothing in the first bold face portion that indicates that indicates prediction that this pattern for reduction of costs will not hold! Am I blind? Missing something?
C'mon - this is the first bold portion "...each time restrictions on the advertising of legal services have been eliminated, the number of lawyers advertising their services has increased and legal costs to consumers have declined in consequence". Where in this entire bold portion 1 you see prediction that this pattern will not hold? Not in this portion at all. There is nothing to indicate that this argument is not correct, not in this boldface portion. A second portion acknowledges a circumstance in which pattern will not hold - exactly C. Look, the pattern is valid but not in case if requirement to specify fee arrangements ceases.

mikemcgarry · Answer

Dear Erjan_S , I'm happy to respond.

I agree, there's something subtle going on here--what exactly is the " case at hand " discussed in (B) & (C)? One way to think about this is to think about the the personality of the person making an argument. First, think about a general argument: Premise #1 ( we all agree on this ) Premise #2 ( we all agree on this ) Conclusion ( this is what I really wanted to say to you ) If I am the person making the argument, the premises are just things I say to lay the groundwork, to establish agreement points with others before I try to change how they thing; by contrast, the conclusion represents my thoughts, what I really have to say. That's my focus and concern. In any argument, the focus is the conclusion. In this argument, the first two sentences are premises. That's what has started in the past and has been true for a long time. There's nothing new happening there, just the same old patterns. What has been happening for years is not the " case at hand ," the pressing issue of the moment. In sentence #3, we hear about something that sounds new: " eliminating the state requirement that legal advertisements must specify fees for specific services ." This is a new element, apparently up for discussion right now, so this is the " case at hand ." This is the controversial issue. This is where the focus of the author is. This is the matter under debate: everyone agrees on the premises, but presumably not everyone agrees with this author--he wouldn't have to make his argument if everyone else agreed with him! He is making his argument, his case, about this possible new change in the law. Thus, BF #1 is something that preceded the case at hand, and the author expects that that pattern will not continue to hold in the case at hand. BF #2 is a reason why that pattern will not hold in the case at hand. This is precisely what (C) says. Does all this make sense? Mike

articuno · Answer

1. Bold Face
2. Look for conclusion: However, eliminating the state requirement that legal advertisements must specify fees for specific services would almost certainly increase rather than further reduce consumer’s legal costs.

Label all sentences:
- background / doesn't support conclusion
- background / doesn't support conclusion
- doesn't support conclusion
- conclusion
- premise

3. Looking for background / premise combination

4. Focusing on identifying the role of the first boldface... 
A: Ok. Author does say "it is true"
B: No. The conclusion states the pattern will not hold. Eliminate
C: Ok. True.
D: No. This doesn't support the conclusion
E: Ok. Hold onto this.

Now looking for the second bold face:
A: No. The second boldface is contrary to the prediction.
C: Ok. This works. Hold.
E: No. The second boldface is not a conclusion.

My selection: Choice C

Some people might ask, how to tell which of the following is conclusion?:

X: However, eliminating the state requirement that legal advertisements must specify fees for specific services would almost certainly increase rather than further reduce consumer’s legal costs. 
Y: Lawyers would no longer have an incentive to lower their fees when they begin advertising and if no longer required to specify fee arrangements, many lawyers who now advertise would increase their fees.

X: This sentence is a prediction/claim that doesn't have any support.
Y: States a condition that if met, an outcome follows. The condition mentioned is used as premise.

longhaul123 · Answer

can someone please tell me why option B is incorrect .

mikemcgarry · Answer

Dear longhaul123 , I'm happy to respond.

My friend, because I have high hopes for your excellence, I am going to chide you. What you have presented here is not a high quality question. It probably took you less than 60 seconds to formulate and post this question. The low effort you invested is indicative of how little your question stands to help you. You see, students naively believe that education is something that experts "do" to students. In fact, you are 100% responsible for your education: it is something you "do" to yourself, by yourself, and for yourself. We experts can provide information, but the hard work of learning and assimilation falls firmly on your shoulders. It would be of much greater benefit to you to ask a high quality question. Such a question would make clear everything about your approach to the question. You would explain your understanding of the prompt and the reasons you believe that (B) is a valid answer. You see, in writing all that, you would be forced to reflect and to articulate your reflection, and these processes would engage aspects of the human brain that were not engaged when you posted the above question. The more of brain is engaged, the more deeply you will learn and understand. Sometimes, this reflection allows you to deepen your understanding enough that you see the answer to your own question: that is ideal. Short of that, all this work "primes" your brain to receive the answer of an expert. The detailed question also allows the expert to give you a more focused response that address your need in particular. Doing what you can to prepare your brain to receive information is a crucial and vastly underestimated part of learning. I would guess that 95% of people taking the GMAT have access to all the information that would be required to get 730+ on the GMAT, but because it's so hard to learn and assimilate all that information, and retain it under pressure, only 4% of test takers actually score in the 730+ range. Information is widely available, but the truly outstanding students are those who can remember and retain what they learn. Asking excellent questions is one of the best ways to prepare you mind to receive a particular piece of information. See: Asking Excellent Questions My friend, my challenge to you is (a) to read that blog article thorough, (b) read this entire thread with all the discussion, and (c) if you still have a question at that point, to spend time crafting the highest quality question you can formulate. If you do that, I will be more than happy to answer it. Does all this make sense? Mike

Jsound996 · Answer

This question is very similar to this GMATprep question: https://gmatclub.com/forum/public-healt ... 40641.html

AlphaCentauri4ly · Answer

AndrewN  Could you help me organize thoughts on such questions? I also had trouble identifying conclusion vs premise around the second boldface sentence.

AndrewN · Answer

Hello,  AlphaCentauri4ly . I would first suggest that you not treat boldface passages any differently from how you would typically read a passage. Just go sentence by sentence, looking to understand how one idea transitions to another. Sure, you want to pay attention to how the two boldface portions may play off each other, but not to the exclusion of all the other contextual information. Also, you can sometimes focus on one boldface portion or the other to make eliminations in some of the answer choices. I was looking at another tough (700-level) question with somebody recently, and we simply stopped reading the passage once were about halfway through to discuss the first boldface only. Two of the answer choices made no sense whatsoever based on that part, so, without any need to jump across the semicolon in the answer choices, we had already eliminated 40 percent of the answer choices. (Note that there is a difference between  knowing  something is wrong and thinking it may be wrong. Do not eliminate unless you have cause to do so.) It was just an exercise, but the point is that you should not make yourself work any harder on these questions. If you can find an easy target, pick it off.

I would suggest you read the  Most Helpful Expert Reply , conveniently titled  Analyzing a Critical Reasoning Boldface Question , at the top of the thread for a thorough analysis of one approach to boldface questions. I would also suggest checking out  GMAT Ninja's Critical Reasoning Resource Collection . Part 2 includes a subsection on boldface questions, with one dedicated video and three lengthy written responses to questions in their respective threads.

That should get you started. Thank you for thinking to ask.

- Andrew

Raman109 · Answer

Understanding the argument structure - 
Consumer advocate: 
It is generally true, at least in this state, that lawyers who advertise a specific service charge less for that service than lawyers who do not advertise.  - Fact

It is also true that each time restrictions on the advertising of legal services have been eliminated, the number of lawyers advertising their services has increased and legal costs to consumers have declined in consequence. -  Fact. The cause and effect relationship. Restrictions eliminated > more lawyers advertise> as the lawyers who advertise charge less, so the more lawyers advertise, the lower the cost for consumers.

However, eliminating the state requirement that legal advertisements must specify fees for specific services  would almost certainly increase rather than further reduce consumers’ legal costs   (Conclusion and the Prediction by Consumer Advocate).

Lawyers would no longer have an incentive to lower their fees when they begin advertising and if no longer required to specify fee arrangements, many lawyers who now advertise would increase their fees.  (supports the conclusion/prediction)

In the consumer advocate’s argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

(B) The first is a pattern of cause and effect that the consumer advocate argues  (concludes)  will be repeated in the case at issue  (no, the CA says that pattern will be broken and the prices for consumers will increase rather than go down and that's a concern for CA);  the second acknowledges a circumstance  (Fact)  in which that pattern would not hold.  (correct) - but overall, this option is wrong because of the first part.

(C) The first is a pattern of cause and effect that the consumer advocate predicts  (what prediction - would almost certainly increase rather than further reduce consumers’ legal costs)  will not hold in the case at issue  (exactly - that's what the conclusion/prediction that the costs will increase and not decrease) ; the second offers a consideration in support of that prediction.  (yes, the second supports that prediction/conclusion.)

KarishmaB · Answer

Evaluate the Argument by breaking it down into its components. For Boldface questions, the answer will be right there.

Consumer advocate: It is generally true, at least in this state, that lawyers who advertise a specific service charge less for that service than lawyers who do not advertise.

The advocate accepts this as true in most cases.

It is also true that  each time restrictions on the advertising of legal services have been eliminated, the number of lawyers advertising their services has increased and legal costs to consumers have declined in consequence.

He also accepts this as true. Each time X happens, Y happens.

However, eliminating the state requirement that legal advertisements must specify fees for specific services would almost certainly increase rather than further reduce consumer’s legal costs.

He says that this principle will not hold in this case. This is a prediction. He predicts that we will have an exception here. This is his opinion. Hence this is the conclusion.

Lawyers would no longer have an incentive to lower their fees when they begin advertising and    if no longer required to specify fee arrangements, many lawyers who now advertise would increase their fees.

He is using this to support his conclusion. Why is it that the principle will not hold in the case discussed above? He says, "Consider this: If fees is not required to be specified in the Ad, the lawyers will not have an incentive to lower their fees when they advertise, hence the ones who advertise will also increase their fees"

Hence (C) works.
(C) The first is pattern of cause and effect that the consumer advocate predicts will not hold in the case at issue; the second offers a consideration in support of that prediction.

It is a pattern of cause and effect that he says will not hold in this particular case. 
He makes a prediction and uses teh second BF as a consideration to support his prediction.

Answer (C)

Consumer advocate: It is generally true, at least in this state, that

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

Consumer advocate: It is generally true, at least in this state, that

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