Consumer advocate: it is generally true, at least in this state, that lawyers who advertise a
specific service charge less for that service than lawyers who do not advertise. It is also true
that each time restrictions on the advertising of legal services have been eliminated, the
number of lawyers advertising their services has increased and legal costs to
consumers have declined in consequence. However, eliminating the state requirement that
legal advertisements must specify fees for specific services would almost certainly increase
rather than further reduce consumer’s legal costs. Lawyers would no longer have an incentive
to lower their fees when they begin advertising and if no longer required to specify fee
arrangements, many lawyers who now advertise would increase their fees.
In the consumer advocate’s argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following
roles?
(A) The first is a generalization that the consumer advocate accepts as true; the second is
presented as a consequence that follows from the truth of that generalization.
(B) The first is a pattern of cause and effect that the consumer advocate argues will be
repeated in the case at issue; the second acknowledges a circumstance in which that
pattern would not hold.
(C) The first is pattern of cause and effect that the consumer advocate predicts will not hold in
the case at issue; the second offers a consideration in support of that prediction.
(D) The first is evidence that the consumer advocate offers in support of a certain prediction;
the second is that prediction.
(E) The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the main position that the
consumer advocate defends; the second is that position.
此题我看答案看不明白啊,哪位大牛帮帮忙啊?
hehe, 还是用中文解释一下吧，消费者保护主义者提出一个观点，取消广告约束（在律师的广告中增加报价），消费者就会多付钱。
第一个黑体字（each time restrictions 。。。。declined in consequence）提到了一个现象可以Weaken观点，包含原因和结果。
第二个黑体字（if no longer 。。。increase their fees.）提出了论据，可以Support提出的观点
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |