BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Target Test Prep · GMAT

Choose how you want to prepare

Learn live with an expert or move at your own pace. Every option includes the complete TTP study system.

★★★★★5.0559 reviews
Vote for Target Test Prep, Newsweek Readers’ Choice Awards 2026
NEWSWEEK READERS’ CHOICE 2026

BIG NEWS! Target Test Prep has been nominated, and they’d love your vote!

TTP has worked incredibly hard to build the best test prep experience possible, and winning Newsweek’s 2026 Readers’ Choice Award for Best Test Prep would mean a lot to them. If TTP has helped you, they’d be incredibly grateful for your vote. You can vote once each day through September 9.

Vote for TTP
GMATLiveTeach 7 seats left
Chris Peckover
NEXT LIVE COHORT

Oct 13 to Jan 7, 2027

with Chris Peckover

Schedule
Tue, Thu · 8:00 to 10:00 PM ET
Included
40 live hours + 6 months of GMAT OnDemand
  • Live instruction and real-time questions
  • Class recordings and assigned practice
View class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
EALiveTeach 5 seats left
Logan Thompson
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Sep 6 to Dec 6, 2026

with Logan Thompson

Schedule
Sun · 9:30 AM to 12:30 PM ET
Included
40 hours of live online classes plus six months of access to the complete TTP EA OnDemand course.
  • 165+ EA Score Guarantee
  • 4,100+ Quant, Verbal, and Integrated Reasoning practice questions
  • 400+ hours of in-depth video lessons
  • 3,000+ step-by-step video solutions
View EA class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
GMATOnDemand Start anytime
SELF-PACED MASTERCLASS

Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand

Complete access from day one. Study on your schedule.

715+ score guarantee
$0to start then $127/mo
  • Personalized study plan and analytics
  • Thousands of lessons and practice questions

Compare the format, schedule, and included access before enrolling. Prices and seat counts shown reflect the supplied offer details.

GMAT Prep Question Pack 1 Tough CR question Bold Faced

Expert replies
by richachampion » Sun May 28, 2017 9:06 am
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.

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.
Last edited by richachampion on Thu Jun 01, 2017 9:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
R I C H A,
My GMAT Journey: 470 → 720 → 740
Target Score: 760+
[email protected]
1. Press thanks if you like my solution.
2. Contact me if you are not improving. (No Free Lunch!)
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by DavidG@VeritasPrep » Sun May 28, 2017 10:55 am
richachampion wrote: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.

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.
I think we may have lost the question here :) Repost?
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor

Veritas Prep Reviews
Save $100 off any live Veritas Prep GMAT Course
Join the discussion

by richachampion » Thu Jun 01, 2017 9:03 am
DavidG@VeritasPrep wrote:
richachampion wrote: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.

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.
I think we may have lost the question here :) Repost?
I have bolded the question.
R I C H A,
My GMAT Journey: 470 → 720 → 740
Target Score: 760+
[email protected]
1. Press thanks if you like my solution.
2. Contact me if you are not improving. (No Free Lunch!)
Join the discussion

by GMATGuruNY » Thu Jun 01, 2017 9:58 am
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?
Conclusion: Eliminating the requirement that legal advertisements must specify fees for specific services would INCREASE legal costs.

Boldface 1: A causal relationship -- that fewer restrictions typically lead to LOWER legal costs -- that WEAKENS the conclusion.

Boldface 2: A PREMISE that explains why legal costs in the case at hand would INCREASE: lawyers would no longer have an incentive to lower their fees when they begin advertising.

(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. The second phrase does not follow from but COUNTERS the first phrase. Eliminate A.

(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 first phrase WEAKENS the conclusion. Eliminate B.

(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. The first phrase expresses a causal relationship -- that fewer restrictions typically lead to lower legal costs -- that the passage predicts will not hold true in the case at hand. The second phrase supports the prediction that legal costs will INCREASE.

(D) The first is evidence that the consumer advocate offers in support of a certain prediction; the second is that prediction. The first phrase does not support the prediction that legal costs will INCREASE. Eliminate D.

(E) The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the main position that the consumer advocate defends; the second is that position. The second phrase is not the conclusion but a PREMISE. Eliminate E.

The correct answer is C.[/quote]
Private tutor exclusively for the GMAT and GRE, with over 20 years of experience.
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.

As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.

For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
Join the discussion