og12cr 56 a选项

callmesoli

56. 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 the 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?
(A) Some lawyers who now advertise will charge
more for specific services if they do not have to
specify fee arrangements in the advertisements.
(B) More consumers will use legal services if there
are fewer restrictions on the advertising of legal
services.
(C) If the restriction against advertisements that do
not specify fee arrangements is removed, more
lawyers will advertise their services.
(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.
(E) If the only restrictions on the advertising of legal
services were those that apply to every type of
advertising, most lawyers would advertise their
services.
答案选c为什么a选项中og说The lawyers may charge more,but nothing in the passage rules out the possibility that no lawyer will charge more

看过以前的帖子了，不过大家都在讨论b,d选项
就我看不懂og对a的解释呀
求牛牛。 万分感谢

sunnybyy

must be true就是说 由原文信息可以推出必然成立的

og的解释是说 律师们可能涨价 但原文并没有排除律师不涨价的可能

callmesoli

可是A不是说some吗  也没有说绝对呀？
啊啊啊  晕了  
再理一下    do not specify fee arrangements就是没有restriction   也就是lower cost  那some lawyer 不是应该少收费吗？
搞不清楚了   麻烦可不可以帮我理一下逻辑嘛
跪谢啦~

xiaoxiaoxxliu

这题主要是讨论律师打不打广告，有多少律师打广告。
不是律师打了广告后收费变多变少的问题，题中根本没有提供足够的信息来推出A, 所以OG说The lawyers may charge more,but nothing in the passage rules out the possibility that no lawyer will charge more

callmesoli

就是说是无关咯，按照这样我就懂了，谢谢帮我解答