The contingency-fee system, which allows lawyers and their clients to

Question

The contingency-fee system, which allows lawyers and their clients to agree that the lawyer will be paid only in the event of success, does not increase the number of medical malpractice lawsuits brought against doctors. As attorneys must cover the costs for their time and research, they want to be assured that any medical malpractice case they accept on a contingency-fee basis has substantial merit. Consequently, attorneys turn away many people who come to see them, for lack of a good case.

The argument above is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it fails to

The argument above is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it fails to

A. specify the criteria attorneys use to judge the merits of a medical malpractice case

B. consider whether, in the absence of a contingency-fee option, even people with meritorious cases are much less likely to initiate litigation if they believe they might incur large legal fees

C. note whether, in successful medical malpractice lawsuits, the average monetary award after legal costs have been deducted is less under contingency-fee arrangements than otherwise

D. consider the effect of the contingency-fee system on the number of lawsuits sought for reasons other than medical malpractice

E. acknowledge the rising cost of medical malpractice insurance

CR15380.01

nightblade354 · Accepted Answer

The contingency-fee system, which allows lawyers and their clients to agree that the lawyer will be paid only in the event of success, does not increase the number of medical malpractice lawsuits brought against doctors. As attorneys must cover the costs for their time and research, they want to be assured that any medical malpractice case they accept on a contingency-fee basis has substantial merit. Consequently, attorneys turn away many people who come to see them, for lack of a good case.

The argument above is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it fails to

P : As attorneys must cover the costs for their time and research, they want to be assured that any medical malpractice case they accept on a contingency-fee basis has substantial merit

SC : Consequently, attorneys turn away many people who come to see them, for lack of a good case.

C : The contingency-fee system, which allows lawyers and their clients to agree that the lawyer will be paid only in the event of success, does not increase the number of medical malpractice lawsuits brought against doctor

Fairly straight forward argument, and one that could easily be considered a good argument. As a result, when you read a question like this and cannot see an issue, you should dive into the answer choices, armed with your premises and conclusion, and hope to poke a hole in the space between the premise(s) and the conclusion.

For this question, we are told that attorneys care about money (shocker). They turn down cases they cannot win during a contingency basis. Therefore, this system does not increase the number of law suits.

Keep focused on the logic used: Because lawyers want to make money, therefore the system works to prevent lawsuits.

The argument above is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it fails to

A. specify the criteria attorneys use to judge the merits of a medical malpractice case --  We are told attorneys judge cases by ability to win, so this does not matter to us.

B. consider whether, in the absence of a contingency-fee option, even people with meritorious cases are much less likely to initiate litigation if they believe they might incur large legal fees --  So this says that, in a world without our contingency fee, people are still less likely to bring lawsuits that cost a lot of money. This is a colossal assumption that we (probably) overlooked. This says that lawsuits won't happen whether the system is or is not in place. This destroys our premise that the system prevents too many lawsuits from happening. Such a sneaky way to attack the problem, but a very important lesson learned.

C. note whether, in successful medical malpractice lawsuits, the average monetary award after legal costs have been deducted is less under contingency-fee arrangements than otherwise --  The only, somewhat, tricky answer choice. This says that instead of getting $15,000 per case under concept A, under contingency you get $10,000. At first glance, you might think that this is the answer. But just because you make less per case does not mean that you can assume that we are deterred from suing doctors. Remember, the whole point of our premises is about chance of winning and gaining money from it. This answer choice has nothing to do with winning, and everything to do with compensation. But we can still make a ton of money this way by suing more doctors.

D. consider the effect of the contingency-fee system on the number of lawsuits sought for reasons other than medical malpractice --  We do not care about other areas because they are not analogous to our issue at hand.

E. acknowledge the rising cost of medical malpractice insurance --  We do not care about rising cost of insurance for doctors. Out.

GMATIntensive · Answer

The Story     
 The contingency-fee system, which allows lawyers and their clients to agree that the lawyer will be paid only in the event of success, does not increase the number of medical malpractice lawsuits brought against doctors.  - This statement talks about a system. What system? A fee system under which a lawyer gets paid only in the event of success (a successful outcome of a case - a result in favour of the client). The term ‘contingency-fee’ also helps us understand what the system is. The statement says implementing such a system does not lead to an increase in the number of malpractice lawsuits brought against doctors. The author makes a claim here. The author simply claims that the number of such medical lawsuits will not increase. The number could decrease, or remain constant. (The author has started the passage off with a claim. He’ll probably go on to provide some basis for making this claim.)

As attorneys must cover the costs for their time and research, they want to be assured that any medical malpractice case they accept on a contingency-fee basis has substantial merit.  - (Indeed. The author does get into supporting the claim made above.) According to the author, the reason (why the fee system does not lead to an increase in the number of malpractice lawsuits brought against doctors) is that lawyers want to accept only cases that have significant merit. Why so? Since attorneys must cover their costs. (This sentence itself can be broken up into two portions - the first supporting the other.)

Consequently, attorneys turn away many people who come to see them, for lack of a good case.  - The word ‘consequently’ tells us that the author is about to present a consequence of something mentioned before. What is the consequence? Lawyers decline many cases that do not have significant merit. What is this a consequence of? The latter half of the second statement.

Gist:  Gist starts.   The contingency-fee system does not lead to an increase in the number of malpractice lawsuits brought against doctors (conclusion)  .
 How come?
Because lawyers reject cases they feel do not have merit.(support)
Why?
Well, the lawyers must cover their costs and thus want to accept only the cases they believe are  winnable . (support)

The Gap     
The passage gives us reasons for why lawyers might reject certain kinds of cases under a particular fee system. Without telling us anything about how lawyers and clients operate when not using this fee system, the author claims that the number of lawsuits ‘will not increase’. In order to conclude that a number will not increase beyond another number, we need to know more about the other number. How do relevant factors govern and influence that number?

This argument is equivalent to saying:  John has not studied, therefore he will not score more in the test than he did last time.

We can see why John may not score as high as  he could have this time . However, how can we compare his potential score this time with his performance in the past? Did he study last time? What if this test is (or the last one was) extremely easy? What if John paid very close attention in classes, and is a quick learner? We do not know anything about John’s performance last time, thus the conclusion that John will not perform better is flawed.

The Goal     
We have discussed one gap that the argument fails to tackle. There could be other gaps as well.

The Evaluation

A. specify the criteria attorneys use to judge the merits of a medical malpractice case 
  Incorrect  . The lawyers find it in their best financial interest to not take cases under the contingency-fee system that they feel have a low chance of success. Not mentioning what criteria the lawyers use is not a flaw in the argument.

Note: The answer choice does not indicate that the criteria lawyers use to decide  winnability  may be flawed. The answer choice simply states that the argument fails to ‘specify’ the criteria. Yes, the argument does not specify the criteria. That on its own does not indicate that the lawyers did not use any criteria or that the criteria was flawed.

B. consider whether, in the absence of a contingency-fee option, even people with meritorious cases are much less likely to initiate litigation if they believe they might incur large legal fees 
  Correct  . Ok, so this option talks about the likelihood of clients bringing cases to lawyers under some different fee system. What if the chances of a client bringing a case to a lawyer go down if the client knows he’ll need to incur a large fee even if he does not win the case? This might mean that overall fewer lawsuits are brought against doctors. This is in line with what we discussed in the ‘gap’ section above. This option tells us that the argument fails to consider how the number of lawsuits brought might get impacted if the contingency-fee system is not used. Thus to conclude that the number of lawsuits brought against doctors ‘will not increase’ is flawed.

C. note whether, in successful medical malpractice lawsuits, the average monetary award after legal costs have been deducted is less under contingency-fee arrangements than otherwise 
  Incorrect  . There is no indication in the argument as to how the ‘magnitude’ of the potential eventual monetary gain impacts the decision of clients or lawyers to bring such lawsuits. Besides, if the monetary award were indeed less under the contingency-fee system, the argument would be strengthened. Thus, not considering this situation cannot be a flaw.

D. consider the effect of the contingency-fee system on the number of lawsuits sought for reasons other than medical malpractice 
  Incorrect  . The argument is specifically about the impact on the number of medical malpractice lawsuits brought against doctors. This option talks about the number of lawsuits ‘sought’ for ‘other reasons’.

Let’s consider that this option talks about ‘sought for medical malpractice’.

We can logically assume that clients would have a higher incentive to bring a case to a lawyer if they need to pay ‘only’ if they win the case. Thus, probably, the number of lawsuits  sought  will increase overall under the contingency-fee system. However, given that the lawyers are selective under this system, more ‘sought’ does not mean more ‘brought’ against. Thus, the argument will hold as is even if we consider this situation. Thus, not considering this situation is not a flaw in the argument.

E. acknowledge the rising cost of medical malpractice insurance 
  Incorrect  . Who would pay ‘medical malpractice insurance’? The doctors. The cost of such insurance to the doctors would have no bearing on whether clients consult lawyers for medical malpractice cases, and whether lawyers take on such cases.

Additional Notes     
‘does not increase’ is not the same as  decreases . ‘Does not increase’ means that the number either decreases or remains the same.
‘John does not like broccoli’ is not the same as ‘John hates broccoli’. John could mean hate or be indifferent towards broccoli.
In Quant, ‘not negative’ does not necessarily mean the number is positive. It means that the number is either positive or 0.

If you have any doubts regarding any part of this solution, please feel free to ask.

LoneSurvivor · Answer

+1 B

The contingency-fee system, which allows lawyers and their clients to agree that the lawyer will be paid only in the event of success, does not increase the number of medical malpractice lawsuits brought against doctors. As attorneys must cover the costs for their time and research, they want to be assured that any medical malpractice case they accept on a contingency-fee basis has substantial merit. Consequently, attorneys turn away many people who come to see them, for lack of a good case.

The argument above is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it fails to

Argument Analysis

So the Author is basically arguing that the Contingency fee system won't work as Attorneys bear the cost of time and research and they don't entertain cases which lack merit. Consequently, attorneys turn away many people who come to see them, for lack of a good case.

The argument above is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it fails to

A. specify the criteria attorneys use to judge the merits of a medical malpractice case

Criterion does not matter ,to weaken the Argument we need to show something that Use of contingency-fee system may decrease the malpractice lawsuits if we consider.... 
 
B. consider whether, in the absence of a contingency-fee option, even people with meritorious cases are much less likely to initiate litigation if they believe they might incur large legal fees

Correct , It Questions in the absence of contingency-fee system will people be less likely to indulge in malpractice ?

C. note whether, in successful medical malpractice lawsuits, the average monetary award after legal costs have been deducted is less under contingency-fee arrangements than otherwise

It talks out of Scope, Argument is not about Money, argument is about Malpractices

D. consider the effect of the contingency-fee system on the number of lawsuits sought for reasons other than medical malpractice

Other Medical Malpractices is not a concern.

E. acknowledge the rising cost of medical malpractice insurance

Rising Cost is Out of the Scope of the Argument.

gmatt1476 · Answer

Official Explanation

Argument Evaluation

This question asks us to identify the best criticism of this argument among the given answer choices.

Based on the premise that attorneys will turn away many potential clients who are not likely to win their cases, the argument concludes that a contingency-fee system does not increase the number of medical malpractice lawsuits brought against doctors.

In order to understand the argument more fully, we would need to consider whether the alternative to a contingency-fee system—a system wherein a client pays the attorney's fees regardless of outcome—makes it less likely that a potential client would bring a medical malpractice lawsuit against a doctor.

A. While it is true that the argument fails to specify the criteria that attorneys use to judge the merits of a malpractice case, this in no way suggests that such criteria do not exist.

B. Correct. This claim suggests that in the absence of a contingency-fee option, potential clients might hesitate to bring to court even lawsuits with merit. This suggests that there might actually be fewer meritorious malpractice lawsuits against doctors without the contingency-fee option. This would result in an overall reduction in the number of malpractice lawsuits against doctors, which substantially weakens the conclusion.

C. This implies that the contingency-fee option would reduce costs. Therefore, there would be more incentive to bring cases under the contingency-fee option. This strengthens the argument.

D. This is outside the scope of the argument. Note that the conclusion is about medical malpractice lawsuits, so this criticism is immaterial to the argument.

E. Note that medical malpractice insurance is a cost paid by doctors themselves. Therefore, the rising cost of medical malpractice insurance has no effect on the likelihood that a medical malpractice case will be brought to court.

The correct answer is B.

panopticon · Answer

This is a great question!

The premise states that a certain fee system (which may seem beneficial to clients) does not increase the number of a certain type of lawsuits, medical malpractice lawsuits brought against doctors. The evidence cited for this lack of increase in medical malpractice suits is that since attorneys want to make sure they win the case (presumably so they can actually make a profit), they will turn away any cases are estimated to have higher costs that gains. The conclusion? Attorneys turn away clients who seem to have cases that lack merit.

How can we weaken the conclusion that the reason that there is not an increase in medical malpractice lawsuits

The contingency-fee system, which allows lawyers and their clients to agree that the lawyer will be paid only in the event of success, does not increase the number of medical malpractice lawsuits brought against doctors. As attorneys must cover the costs for their time and research, they want to be assured that any medical malpractice case they accept on a contingency-fee basis has substantial merit. Consequently, attorneys turn away many people who come to see them, for lack of a good case.

The argument above is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it fails to

The argument above is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it fails to

A. specify the criteria attorneys use to judge the merits of a medical malpractice case
 Who cares? In this scenario, we only assume that attorneys are the ones turning clients away... we don't need to get into semantics about the methods they use to do so.

B. consider whether, in the absence of a contingency-fee option, even people with meritorious cases are much less likely to initiate litigation if they believe they might incur large legal fees
 This seems like the right option. Maybe the lack of increases in cases for medical malpractice suits is not due to lawyer rejection, but due to potential clients fearing legal fees? Thus, the addition of a contingency fee option might not increase the amount of suits brought against doctors.

C. note whether, in successful medical malpractice lawsuits, the average monetary award after legal costs have been deducted is less under contingency-fee arrangements than otherwise
 It is true that this is not noted in the question. This may lead to potential clients not wanting to bring forward these cases under the contingency fee option. HOWEVER, this scenario may also lead lawyers to try to bring in more clients, thus not turning away potential suits, since the costs are lower.

D. consider the effect of the contingency-fee system on the number of lawsuits sought for reasons other than medical malpractice
 Irrelevant. We're discussing the increase of lawsuits in one specific area - medical malpractice brought against doctors - we are not provided any evidence that would lead us to infer that cases in an another area would impact cases of medical malpractice.

E. acknowledge the rising cost of medical malpractice insurance
 Quite irrelevant. Nowhere does this questions discuss medical malpractice insurance and its implications for such a scenario.

aniket16c · Answer

Thank you  gmatt1476  for posting this question

Argument - New system - the lawyers are paid only if they win a case. Lawyers need to cover the basic costs. Hence, they will consider only the cases with a good chance of winning.
Conclusion - Thus, the new system will not increase the malpractice lawsuits against doctors

Question type - evaluate

B. consider whether, in the absence of a contingency-fee option, even people with meritorious cases are much less likely to initiate litigation if they believe they might incur large legal fees
- Meaning of the option - In absence of such a system, do people who have cases with high chance of winning fail to file a case because of fear of large legal fees. In such a case, the new fee system will give these people confidence that they may not have to incur there larges if the lawyers looses. Hence, their risk of having to pay huge fees decreases --> and thus the claims will increase - Weakens the conclusion
- However, if that is not the case, then the extravagant fees will not deter people with legitimate cases. In such a case, there won't be any effect on the number of people applying - this supports the conclusion

C. note whether, in successful medical malpractice lawsuits, the average monetary award after legal costs have been deducted is less under contingency-fee arrangements than otherwise
- This in fact weakens the conclusion. 
- Meaning = Resultant award to the person who files the claim = Monetary award - legal costs
- In case of current system - the award < traditional system = we do not know how less the award is - whether it is too significant to demotivate the people or too low to any no effect whatsoever
- If award > traditional system = Again we do not know how much more the award id - whether it is too significant to motivate the people or too low to any no effect whatsoever

Dear Experts,
 VeritasKarishma   daagh   nightblade354   GMATNinja   GMATNinjatwo 
Please shed some light on this question!

KarishmaB · Answer

Since attorneys must cover the costs for their time and research, they accept only substantial merit cases. 
So, attorneys turn away many people who come to see them, for lack of a good case.

Conclusion: The contingency-fee system does not increase the number of medical malpractice lawsuits brought against doctors.

The argument seems ok, right? Attorneys will take only meritorious cases to increase their chances of making money. But we need to find a criticism of the argument. That is, we need to show that the availability of the option could increase the number of lawsuits.

A. specify the criteria attorneys use to judge the merits of a medical malpractice case

We are only concerned about the number of lawsuits. Whether they are meritorious or not is irrelevant.

B. consider whether, in the absence of a contingency-fee option, even people with meritorious cases are much less likely to initiate litigation if they believe they might incur large legal fees

This info impacts the number of lawsuits. It tells us that people are more likely to pursue legal route because of contingency-fee option.

So say 100 people initiate litigation in the absence of a contingency-fee option.
But say 200 people initiate litigation due to the availability of the contingency-fee option (people don't have to pay anything to lawyers if they don't win so anyone and everyone could be trying to litigate). Even if lawyers reject 50 of them, still there are 150 litigations against doctors in this case. So the number is higher. 
This is the answer.

C. note whether, in successful medical malpractice lawsuits, the average monetary award after legal costs have been deducted is less under contingency-fee arrangements than otherwise

The comparison of the fee under contingency-fee option and the fee without contingency-fee option is irrelevant. We are concerned about the number of cases when it is available and when it is not. It depends on how many people want to litigate and how many are accepted. For the people not opting for contingency-fee option, all may be accepted (after all, the lawyer will get paid either way). Of the people opting for contingency-fee option, some may be turned away because they don't have strong cases. So it seems that the contingency-fee option reduces the overall number of lawsuits. We can't show that the option could increase the number of lawsuits.

D. consider the effect of the contingency-fee system on the number of lawsuits sought for reasons other than medical malpractice

Anything other than medical malpractice is irrelevant to our argument.

E. acknowledge the rising cost of medical malpractice insurance

Irrelevant.

Answer (B)

AyeeshaJ · Answer

Went through all the explanations in the thread, however, still confused between (B) and (C)

GMATNinja , for larger community interest, this question definitely requires your response.

GMATGuruNY · Answer

Premise:
Contingency-fee attorneys turn away many people who come to see them, for lack of a good case.
Conclusion:
The contingency-fee system does not increase the number of medical malpractice lawsuits brought against doctors.

The correct answer must weaken the conclusion.

B:  In the absence of a contingency-fee option, even people with meritorious cases are much less likely to initiate litigation. 
Implication:
In the PRESENCE of a contingency-fee option, people with meritorious cases are much MORE likely to initiate litigation -- weakening the conclusion that the contingency-fee system does not increase the number of lawsuits.

B

GMATNinja · Answer

In this passage, we're told that:

"the contingency-fee system does not increase the  number  of medical malpractice lawsuits brought against doctors."

The evidence given for this is: since the attorneys must cover their own costs for time and research, they want to ensure the cases they take on have merit and are likely to win. This makes the attorneys turn away many people bringing them cases that are unlikely to be successful.

We're asked which of the answer choices includes a criticism that the argument is vulnerable to. (B) tells us:
 
The passage tells us that attorneys reject cases that do not have merit under the contingency fee system. (B) tells us that if the contingency-fee system was not an option, even people with cases that  did  have merit would be less likely to litigate because they might incur large legal bills.

This means some cases that would not have been taken to litigation without the contingency-fee option  are  accepted by attorneys  because of  the option to take the case using a contingency-fee basis. From this, we can conclude the contingency-fee system  does  increase the number of medical malpractice lawsuits brought against doctors, when compared to the number of cases that would have been brought without the system.

(B) looks good so far -- let's take a look at (C):
 
(C) tells us that in a successful case the  "average monetary award...is less under contingency-fee arrangments than otherwise" .

However, remember the argument in the passage is about the  number  of lawsuits brought against doctors. We are not concerned with the  size  of the monetary award provided in an average lawsuit, since we cannot say how the size of the monetary award affects the number of lawsuits.

Further, (C) only provides information about the cases that have been successful. It doesn't provide any information about the  overall number of lawsuits  being brought against doctors under contingency-fee arrangements or otherwise.

(B) provides a much clearer and stronger criticism of the argument than (C) -- that is why (B) is the answer to this question.

I hope that helps!

DrWho · Answer

GMATNinja   CJAnish   VeritasKarishma

Why is "Consequently, attorneys turn away many people who come to see them, for lack of a good case" not the conclusion (instead of "The contingency-fee system does not increase the number of medical malpractice")?

If we consider the conclusion to be "attorneys turn away many people who come to see them, for lack of a good case", the correct answer seems to be C.

Thoughts?

KarishmaB · Answer

Conclusion is the reason the author writes the argument. That is the one thing he is trying to tell us. Here the point the author is making is that contingency-fee system does not increase the number of medical malpractice lawsuits brought against doctors. 
Rest of the sentences are given to support this. How?

Attorneys must cover the costs for their time and research, 
so they want to be assured that any medical malpractice case they accept on a contingency-fee basis has substantial merit. 
So, attorneys turn away many people who come to see them, for lack of a good case.

This is the reason he says that the number of lawsuits does not increase.

DrWho · Answer

VeritasKarishma

Can't it be interpreted as following?

1. Authors makes a claim, "The contingency-fee system does not increase the number of medical malpractice lawsuits brought against doctors."
2. Author then writes a universal truth or assumption/educated guess states "attorneys must cover the costs for their time and research"
3. Based on #2, s/he states "Lawyers want to be assured that any medical malpractice case they accept on a contingency-fee basis has substantial merit."
4. Based on #1 and #3, s/he concludes "attorneys turn away many people who come to see them, for lack of a good case."

Could you please explain the reason why above interpretation is incorrect? Or why is the other interpretation better than this one?

KarishmaB · Answer

The first sentence you gave is a claim made by the author based on the facts he presents subsequently. A claim made by the author is the conclusion.

Your point 4 (attorneys will turn away many people) can at best be called an intermediate conclusion based on what is given above: "attorneys want to cover costs so they will keep meritorious cases only"

Argp · Answer

GMATNinja   AjiteshArun   VeritasKarishma   nightblade354   CJAnish   EducationAisle

Conclusion – contingency fee system is not increasing the number of malpractice suits against the doctors

By weakening the conclusion we want to show that the number of malpractice suits is increasing

While I understand that B is the only relevant answer after PoE, I am still unclear on the logic of the conclusion vs. Option B.
For example,  before  the contingency-fee system, the number of malpractice cases were 10.
Now, as the number of cases did not increase even  with  the contingency-fee system, the number of malpractice cases  is 10 . Then, how is B weakening the conclusion? How does the likelihood to litigate without the contingency fee system help us decide whether the number of malpractices cases will decrease?

mSKR · Answer

Answer lies in exact understanding of B

B. consider whether,  in the absence of a contingency-fee option,  even people with meritorious cases  are much less likely  to initiate litigation if they believe they  might incur large legal fees
 
It means: 
Situation when no contingency-fee option : many people didn't initiate litigation . Why ? because costs were higher
What about now?
Now they don't need to bear as given in argument. lawyers would handle it by themselves if the case has merit .

What does it mean?
Before many people didnt go to lawyers
Now, number of people can increase as now they don't need to incur heavy legal costs if their case has merit

in conclusion, Before 10 cases, and some were not considered ( say 5 due to heavy costs). Now 10+5 = 15 case may come up with new contingency system.

Is it clear?

Argp · Answer

hello mSKR I think I get it now. The argument is based on the assumption that all good cases were in fact litigated/taken to court. The key is to differentiate the number of good malpractice cases Vs. the number of good malpractice cases that were litigated. Lawyers filter good cases from bad, so the conclusion jumps to state that the number of cases that were litigated haven't increased - they are the same number. However, in truth, the argument fails to mention whether the assumption was considered, and hence a weakener. So, the weakener is an unconsidered assumption. This was a tough one. Please correct me if I am wrong

AjiteshArun · Answer

Hi  Argp ,

That is correct: option B gives us a reason to think that in the absence of a contingency-fee option the number of cases is likely to be lower than what we would have expected it to be if there were no concerns about large legal fees.

custodio · Answer

GMATNinja   KarishmaB 
 GMATIntensive

(B) and (C) are "whether" sentences, so I think we should think both ways (yes or no).
contingency-fee option: CFO

(B) 
-> if yes,  people  will not initiate a lawsuit when non-CFO (so, CFO will increase the lawsuits) -- WEAKEN
-> if no,  people  will initiate a lawsuit when non-CFO (so, CFO will not increase the lawsuits) -- STRENGTHEN

(C)
-> if yes,  lawyers  will take more lawsuits (because CFO makes them earn more) -- WEAKEN
-> if no,  lawyers  will not take more lawsuits (because CFO makes them earn less) -- STRENGTHEN

Any thoughts?

The contingency-fee system, which allows lawyers and their clients to

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

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

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

The contingency-fee system, which allows lawyers and their clients to

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