请教OG11 第61题

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 oneagainst advertisements that do not specify fee arrangements,overall consumer legal costs will be lower than the state retains its current restrictions.

Which of the following,if true,would most seriously weaken the argument concerning overall consumer legal costs?

(A)The state has recently removed some other restrictions that had limited the advertising of legal services

(B)The state is unlikely to remove all the restrictions that apply solely to the advertising of legal services

(C)Lawyers who do not advertise generally provide legal services of the same quality as those provided by lawyers who do advertise

(D)Most lawyers who now specify fee arrangements in their advertisements would continue to do so even if the specification were not required

(E)Most lawyers who advertise apecific services do not loweer their fees for those  services when they begin to advertise

本题的答案是E,但是文中不是说"and the lawyers who advertise a specific service usually charge less for that service than the lawyers who do not advertise", 很明显是在说费用会减少,这个算不算是肯定的事实啊?如果选E,不是成了否定文中所述的事实前提了吗?

做逻辑有个原则是不能否定前提,请问前提是指什么内容,在本题中的前提是什么?这类题的思考方法是什么?

谢谢大家指点

我是这么看的，仅供参考啊

因为文章里有一个therefore,我就把这道题当成因果关系的削弱来做了

原因一 限制越少做广告的律师越多

原因二 做广告的律师比不做广告的律师charge得少

结果 不设限要比设限节约成本

E否定了原因二，根据无因则无果的原则，削弱结果

欢迎讨论

LZ没有看清两句话的比较对象：

and the lawyers who advertise a specific service usually charge less for that service than the lawyers who do not advertise"

比较的是 做广告的律师 和 不做广告的律师 （不同的律师）

Most lawyers who advertise apecific services do not loweer their fees for those  services when they begin to advertise

比较的是 做广告前的律师 和 做广告之后的律师 （同一个律师）

就是说 如果律师做不做广告，他的收费都不会下降，所以有没有限制都无所谓。（做广告的律师收费比不做广告的律师少  对这个结论没有影响。）