The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising of legal services, the more lawyers there are who advertise their services,...
GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions
The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising of legal services, the more lawyers there are who advertise their services, and the lawyers who advertise a specific service usually charge less for that service than lawyers who do not advertise. Therefore, if the state removes any of its current restrictions, such as the one against advertisements that do not specify fee arrangements, overall consumer legal costs will be lower than if the state retains its current restrictions.
If the statements above are true, which of the following must be true?
Passage Visualization
| Passage Statement | Visualization and Linkage |
|---|---|
| The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising of legal services, the more lawyers there are who advertise their services | Establishes: Inverse relationship between restrictions and advertising Example:
|
| the lawyers who advertise a specific service usually charge less for that service than lawyers who do not advertise | Establishes: Advertising correlates with lower prices Example:
|
| 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 | Establishes: Conclusion linking restriction removal to cost reduction Logic Chain:
|
| Overall Implication | The passage establishes a causal chain where regulatory changes create predictable market effects through lawyer behavior modification. The argument assumes that removing "any" restriction will trigger the same positive cost effects, suggesting that all current restrictions suppress beneficial competition rather than some restrictions potentially serving consumer protection purposes. |
Valid Inferences
Inference: Some lawyers who do not currently advertise would begin advertising if restrictions were removed.
Supporting Logic: Since fewer restrictions lead to more lawyers advertising, and since removing any current restriction would constitute fewer restrictions, there must be lawyers who are currently deterred by existing restrictions but would advertise if those barriers were eliminated. This means the current restriction level is preventing some lawyers from advertising who would otherwise choose to do so.
Clarification Note: The passage supports that restriction removal will increase advertising participation, but does not specify which types of lawyers would begin advertising or guarantee that all restriction removals would have equal effects.
This choice suggests that some lawyers who currently advertise will actually charge MORE if they don't have to specify fee arrangements. However, the passage doesn't provide any information about how current advertisers might change their pricing behavior when restrictions are removed. The passage only tells us about the relationship between advertising and pricing (advertisers charge less than non-advertisers), not about how advertisers might change their prices when restrictions change. This is not necessarily true based on the given information.
This choice claims that more consumers will use legal services if there are fewer restrictions. While this might seem logical, the passage doesn't establish any relationship between advertising restrictions and consumer usage of legal services. The passage only discusses the relationship between restrictions, advertising behavior, and pricing. We cannot infer consumer behavior patterns from the given information, so this is not necessarily true.
This choice states that removing the specific restriction mentioned in the passage will result in more lawyers advertising. The passage establishes a clear rule: 'the fewer restrictions there are on the advertising of legal services, the more lawyers there are who advertise their services.' Removing any current restriction would create fewer restrictions overall, which according to this established relationship, must result in more lawyers advertising. This is a direct logical consequence that must be true based on the given information.
This choice suggests that if more lawyers advertise lower prices, non-advertising lawyers will also reduce their prices in response. While this might happen in a competitive market, the passage doesn't establish any causal relationship between advertising lawyers' pricing and non-advertising lawyers' pricing behavior. The passage only compares the two groups' current pricing patterns, not how one group responds to changes in the other group's behavior.
This choice makes a broad claim about what would happen if 'most' restrictions were removed, specifically that 'most' lawyers would then advertise. The passage doesn't provide enough quantitative information to determine what percentage of lawyers would advertise under different restriction scenarios. We know the direction of the relationship (fewer restrictions lead to more advertising) but not the specific proportions, so we cannot conclude this must be true.