Question

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?

• A. The state is unlikely to remove all of the restrictions that apply solely to the advertising of legal services.
• B. Lawyers who do not advertise generally provide legal services of the same quality as those provided by lawyers who do advertise.
• C. Most lawyers who now specify fee arrangements in their advertisements would continue to do so even in the specification were not required.
• D. Most lawyers who advertise specific services do not lower their fees for those services when they begin to advertise.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is D

The argument posits that removing restrictions on advertising legal services will lead to more lawyers advertising and subsequently lower consumer legal costs, because advertising lawyers charge less. To weaken this, we should find a reason why lifting restrictions won’t significantly lower costs.

Consider the option: “Most lawyers who advertise specific services do not lower their fees for those services when they begin to advertise.” This statement suggests that lawyers who start advertising do not necessarily reduce their fees. If true, increased advertising does not equate to lower fees, contradicting the conclusion that lifting advertising restrictions will reduce legal costs. Consequently, this undermines the notion that advertising directly correlates with lower prices for consumers. Thus, this option most seriously weakens the argument.