求助：OG12-56

lanshi

The fewer restrictions there are on theadvertising of legal services, the more lawyers there are who advertise theirservices, and the lawyers who advertise a specific service usually charge lessfor that service than lawyers who do not advertise. Therefore, if the stateremoves any of its current restrictions, such as the one against advertisementsthat do not specify fee arrangements, overall consumer legal costs will be lowerthan if the state retains its current restrictions.
11.   Ifthe statements above are true, which of the following must be true?
(A) Somelawyers who now advertise will charge more for specific services if they do nothave to specify fee arrangements in the advertisements.
(B) More consumers will use legal services if there arefewer restrictions on the advertising of legal services.
(C) If therestriction against advertisements that do not specify fee arrangements isremoved, more lawyers will advertise their services.
(D) If morelawyers advertise lower prices for specific services, some lawyers who do notadvertise will also charge less than they currently charge for those services.（C）
(E) If the onlyrestrictions on the advertising of legal services were those that apply toevery type of advertising, most lawyers would advertise their services.
A哪里不对了？还有C的逻辑我也不太明白还有感觉D也有点点对。。。求助牛人们

henryest

没有了restrictions以后，更多的律师会做更多的广告推销自己服务，那么以后律师费就会减少，所以after removing the restrictions以后，律师不会将律师费涨价。反而会降价。

candybecky

This is a must-be-true question, meaning the answer choice has to be EXACTLY what has been said in the stimulus.
In fact, this is the easiest for logic question because the answer has been given (in the stimulus).
Premise:
1) fewer restrictions --> more lawyers advertise
2) lawyer who advertises --> charge less
Conlusion
remove restricion --> overall cost less for consumer
Then what has to be true :
remove restricion --> more lawyer will advertise, which is basically the first premise.

henryest

D也不对啊
如果律师不做广告的话，费用不变，不会降价。

henryest

试回答：
先看翻译：
56、*背景：对法律服务的广告限制越少，做广告的律师就越多，做广告的律师比没做广告的律师收费低。因此，国家一旦减少限制，比如说对未标明价格的广告的限制，消费者的总成本就会比有限制时低。

问题：归纳。

选项：A：有些律师，打广告时没有标明费用，就会多收费

       B：若限制减少，会有更多消费者用法律服务

       C：如果对未标明费用的广告的限制被取消，会有更多律师打广告

       D：如果更多的律师为低价服务做广告，没做广告的律师仍会降价

       E：如果对法律广告的唯一限制是对每种广告都有效的，大多数律师会做广告

gui5910667

基于题目信息，推不出A，谁说没有标明费用就会多收费？只说了对未标明价格的限制，没说限制的原因就是因为多收费。
B推不出。
C，原文说“对法律服务的广告限制越少，做广告的律师就越多”，这句话直接可以推出C选项“如果对未标明费用的广告的限制被取消，会有更多律师打广告”
基于题目信息，D推不出，谁说更多的律师为低价服务做了广告，没做广告的律师就仍会降价？题目推不出这个。
E也推不出，尤其是“大多数”推不出。

purpleelf

弱弱地举手。。。和答案无关，只是我不明白题干中“做广告的律师比没做广告的律师收费低”是为神马啊为神马啊？

buaagonggan

不要对题干直接给你的前提条件产生疑问（别用常识，什么打了广告应该更贵啊，别考虑它）。尤其体现在这类纯归纳题（注意：其他类题不一定适用啊！！！），直接用题干中的条件往后推（往后别往前），题干中没提的东西，答案中出现了---错，题目中从A到B的关系，答案中从B到A---也错。

xiaoxiaoxxliu

感觉这题中(D) If more lawyers advertise lower prices for specific services, some lawyers who do not advertise will also charge less than they currently charge for those services.其实是这题的assumption。
strengthen题中有premise和conclusion，暗含assumption。
inference题没有conclusion，或者说题中可能有可以理解为conclusion的东西，但是正确选项才是题目的conclusion。那些可能成为conclusion的东西只是它的premise。
C项实际是对题目第一句的复述。
D项不做广告的律师也会减少收费是assumption。因为题中结论：减少限制后，法律费用会降低。但是即使减少限制后会有更多律师做广告，做广告的律师收费会降低。但我们不知道继续不做广告的律师收费是否会提高。如果提高很多，那就可能总体的法律费还是会上升。D正是排除这种可能。
但这题问must be true，所以选C