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. 答案没有什么好讨论的，就是C。但我纠结于A和C，其中C是正确答案。解释上说A不对是因为题目里没有明确给出nobody charges more for specific services的可能性，的确。但C我觉得跟A的情况差不多啊，极端的情况下，我也不能完全排除即使restrictions撤销却没有更多律师做广告的可能性啊。 貌似我有点钻牛角尖了，但版上的高手们能给我个信服的说法吗？谢谢！作者: ARCHER420 时间: 2009-12-7 04:01
楼主有OG11么 OG11也有这么一道类似的题，我也看不出门道，觉得A也对。。。可能是受OG11题的影响吧作者: ubernxx 时间: 2009-12-8 09:05
没有哎。不知道有哪位大神烦劳下，传道解惑啊。可能是我们都抬钻牛角尖了，呵呵。