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?

The state has recently removed some other restrictions that had limited the advertising of legal services.

No worries! We‘ve got your back. Try BYJU‘S free classes today!

The state is unlikely to remove all of the restrictions that apply solely to the advertising of legal services.

No worries! We‘ve got your back. Try BYJU‘S free classes today!

Lawyers who do not advertise generally provide legal services of the same quality as those provided by lawyers who do advertise.

No worries! We‘ve got your back. Try BYJU‘S free classes today!

Most lawyers who now specify fee arrangements in their advertisements would continue to do so even if the specification were not required.

No worries! We‘ve got your back. Try BYJU‘S free classes today!

Most lawyers who advertise specific services do not lower their fees for those services when they begin to advertise.

Right on! Give the BNAT exam to get a 100% scholarship for BYJUS courses

Open in App

Solution

The correct option is E Most lawyers who advertise specific services do not lower their fees for those services when they begin to advertise.
If E is true, the lawyers who begin advertising when the restriction is removed might all be among those who do not lower their fees on beginning to advertise, in which case no decrease in consumer legal costs will occur. Therefore, E weakens the argument and is the best answer.
Since A does not relate the recent removal of restrictions to changes in consumer legal costs, it alone does not weaken the argument. Since the argument is unconcerned with whatever restrictions remain in effect but focuses only on those that will be removed, B does not weaken the argument.
C and D are irrelevant to an evaluation of the argument, which is concerned with cost considerations, not with the quality of legal services or the content of lawyers’ advertisements.

Suggest Corrections

Similar 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?

Advertiser: The revenue that newspapers and magazines earn by publishing advertisements allows publishers to keep the prices per copy of their publications much lower than would otherwise be possible. Therefore, consumers benefit economically from advertising.
Consumer: But who pays for the advertising that pays for low-priced newspapers and magazines? We consumers do, because advertisers pass along advertising costs to us through the higher prices they charge for their products.

Which of the following best describes how the consumer counters the advertiser’s argument?

Q. Some governments have tried to make alcohol and tobacco less attractive to consumers by regulating what can be shown in advertisements for these products, rather than by banning advertising of them altogether. However, the need to obey the letter of these restrictions has actually stimulated advertisers to create advertisements that are more inventive and humorous than they were prior to the restrictions’ introduction
Which of the following, if true, would, in conjunction with the statements above, best support the conclusion that the government policy described above fails to achieve its objective?

Q. 32. Read the arguments given below and answer the questions that follow.
A famous signer recently won a lawsuit against an advertising firm for using another singer in a commercial to evoke the famous singer’s well known rendition of a certain song. As a result of the lawsuit, advertising firms will stop using imitators in commercials. Therefore, adverting costs will rise, since famous singers’ services cost more than those of their imitators.
The conclusion above is based on which of the following assumptions?

Q. Statement : Should there be a ban on product advertising ?

Arguments :
I. No. It is an age of advertising. Unless your advertisement is better than your other competitors, the product will not be sold.
II. Yes. The money spent on advertising is very huge and it inflates the cost of the product.

Join BYJU'S Learning Program