OG10-12

aster2009

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. Therefor, if the state removes any of its current restrictions, such as the one against advertisement, 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 has recently removed some other restrictions that had limited the advertising of legal services.

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

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

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

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

Key：E

这题看的有点晕，哪位NN能给讲解一下，谢谢！

JJJooe

我跟你解释下吧

 

题目里面作者由打广告的律师收费低

得出结论

打广告导致了收费低

 

这个逻辑推理是不一定成立的

 

两个现象在一起存在不一定是有因果关系的

 

而E选项就是这个意思

说其实那些打广告的律师群体往往之前收费就低

收费低的律师更倾向打广告

 

这样的话题目里的结论就不成立了

chwayne

I am not"NN", here is just my analyse:

situation: lawyers who advertise their services charge less than who do not;

conclusion: if more lawyer do advisertise, overall legal cost will be lower;

(I remove one of premise of restriction about advertising of lawyer since I think it's totally unrelative points here and the question actually told us more lawyer will take advertisement(we can suppose so, but either more or less lawyer will do advertise, which is no matter with the answer))

A. no relative;

B. no relative;

C. "same quality", but one offer less cost, we obviously will choose one advertised; but it can not help to lower the whole consumer cost;--take it as backup, let's see"E"

D.nothing about "fee arrangement" on the statement;

E.lawyers who supposed can offer lower prices even dose not exist! say nothing about the "whole consumer legal cost"-- obviously the most searious weaken points 

mayleilas

原题中： 因为 fewer restrictions ，所以 more lawyers to advertise；而  lawyers who advertise a specific service 通常 charge less：

结论：废除 any of its current restrictions，将会：overall consumer legal costs will be lower 。

注意题目中：红色与绿色的lawyer区别。题目中的结论没分清这两个的区别，而是将lawyers to advertise等同于lawyers who advertise a specific service， ，才误导出overall consumer legal costs will be lower 结论的。

如果，做广告的律师（lawyers to advertise）中，那些 advertise a specific service的绝大多数律师做了广告，并在广告中列出了具体服务项目，但列出的费用并没有降低，则overall consumer legal costs并不会减少，题目中的结论被削弱。

只能说对法律服务广告的限制条款减少后，有更多的律师去为律师服务广而告之。而其中有多少律师会具体列出服务项目，又有多少律师会在列出具体服务项目的同时降低服务费用，题目中并没有给出。

如果， advertise a specific service的绝大多数律师降低了服务费用，题目中的结论才成立。

IceOnMe

4楼的朋友分析思路好清楚啊  N！

另外对3楼朋友有关于5个选项的判断有不同看法

个人认为

A   strengthen 

B   unlikely to remove all~~  irrelevant

C   quality~~  irrelevant

D   lawers who specify fees would  continue to specify ~~~irrelevant

在OG 11TH紫皮中  最后一道逻辑题即第82题中  题干内容相似