OG12 CR56

girlwithwings · 发表于 2010-5-7 05:33:19

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.

C

[tr][td=649]1 越少规制，越多律师登广告 2 登广告的律师收费< 不登广告的律师 ---> 去除规制，全体消费成本将下降[/td][/tr][tr][td]所以去除规制（规制那些没登具体费用的广告）
-->言下之意：可以登具体费用？是这个原因才导致以前没登广告的律师都来登广告了？[/td][/tr]
请问
the restriction against advertisements that do not specify fee arrangements
这个定语从句在这里是如何说明Must be true的？我不太明白。

pennyconan · 发表于 2010-5-7 09:11:52

the restriction against advertisements that do not specify fee arrangements这句话在题干中也出现了， that do not specify fee arrangements是定语从句修饰restriction的，意思是“禁止（律师）登出明细账目”的限制，说的是限制的具体内容

leonfine · 发表于 2010-5-24 23:23:22

本来规定律师登广告时，一定要明确收费标准。
如果没有这样的规定，就会有更多律师去登广告（可能大家不愿意把钱说的太清楚？）。

这题我也错了。呵呵。
回头花时间重读了一遍，觉得答案还是很有道理的。

Liz99 · 发表于 2010-5-27 19:30:29

请问这题的E是什么意思？
(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.

我翻译是这样, 但还是读不懂~
如果唯一的限制在法律服务广告是那些适用于各种形式的广告, 大部分的律师会广告他们的服务。
然后OG说可能还是会有少部分的律师作广告, 逻辑点是什么？
请指教~ 谢谢!

bonnie0715 · 发表于 2010-5-27 22:00:00

这个是conclusion 题。所以答案是要和原文保持一致。
(C) If the restriction against advertisements that do
not specify fee arrangements is removed, more
lawyers will advertise their services.
特定费用需要在广告少明示这个规定（注意这个只不过作为原文的一个例子）被移除了，更多律师会登广告。
平行于原文的陈诉
规定越少->登广告的人越多。

the restriction against advertisements that do not specify fee arrangements：对于那些没有突出特别费用的广告的限制

tinder · 发表于 2010-6-18 23:22:24

[quote]
请问这题的E是什么意思？
(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.

我翻译是这样, 但还是读不懂~
如果唯一的限制在法律服务广告是那些适用于各种形式的广告, 大部分的律师会广告他们的服务。
然后OG说可能还是会有少部分的律师作广告, 逻辑点是什么？----------------

lz没有注意到og说那句话：the argument concerns numbers of advertisers rather than type.
我的理解是，这道题主要说的是有没有限制，律师做不做广告做多少广告的问题。根本没涉及到广告的type。逻辑主要是挑错，而不是找正确答案。答案只有相对的比较不错。

刷牙不起沫 · 发表于 2010-7-30 15:59:38

[quote]

请问这题的E是什么意思？
(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.

我翻译是这样, 但还是读不懂~
如果唯一的限制在法律服务广告是那些适用于各种形式的广告, 大部分的律师会广告他们的服务。
然后OG说可能还是会有少部分的律师作广告, 逻辑点是什么？----------------

lz没有注意到og说那句话：the argument concerns numbers of advertisers rather than type.
我的理解是，这道题主要说的是有没有限制，律师做不做广告做多少广告的问题。根本没涉及到广告的type。逻辑主要是挑错，而不是找正确答案。答案只有相对的比较不错。

-- by 会员 tinder (2010/6/18 23:22:24)

为什么E说的是类型而非限制呢？它不是说如果唯一的限制是。。。那么。。。不也在讨论限制与广告的问题吗？

rillshiegin · 发表于 2011-6-25 16:31:02

一开始我也很疑惑E选项，后来试图翻译了一下。。。
(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.
“如果对于打法律服务广告的限制只是与对于其他种类的广告限制相同的话，绝大多数律师会去广告他们的服务。”我认为律师会去做广告的原因是对于广告服务的限制越少越好，并不是与其他类型的广告限制相同。

angelcity · 发表于 2011-6-27 12:46:31

Thefewerrestrictionsthere 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 asthe 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?
注意看看这个句子中重要的词：the fewer……the more……，who……who……，such as……
理解为：首先陈述一个大前提：(1)越少限制，(2) 越多律师打广告，(3)打了广告的律师，比不打的律师要收费少。
然后举例：有一个………的限制条款取消后(对照上面的（1）) ，许多客户的法律费用就少了（对照上面的（3））。
对比一下你会发现C项其实就是在继续把举例中，根据大前提推出，但没有说出来的（2）给说出来了。
E项的意思是说：（其实法律对任何广告都有限制）但如果把专门针对法律类广告的限制降低到跟其他广告限制一样，那么大部分律师都会打广告了。其实看到“to every type of advertising”就不应选E了，因为跟题干没什么关系，赶紧去掉这个答案，减少纠结时间。

傻傻DIY · 发表于 2012-2-5 17:43:04

限制少了费用少对consumers来讲charge就少，那顾客们肯定会多用那些法律服务了 B不就对了么，推理出来对不对啊不理解

OG12 CR56

所属分类: GMAT考试

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()