求教OG11-60

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.

60. 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.

文章有两个前提:1. fewer restriction=>more advertise; 2. the lawyer who advertise a specific service usually charge less; 推出一个结论: if remove any restriction, overall consumer legal cost will be lower.

但是在最后结论中的if the state removes any of its current restrictions,such as the one against advertisements that do not specify fee arrangements.这话事实上表达的是:取消反对不标明费用的限制.也就是说政府允许不写费用.那么结论是就:政府允许不写费用,全体消费者的费用降低.这和第二个前提the lawyer who advertise a specific service usually charge less不是矛盾的吗?

such as the one against advertisements that do not specify fee arrangements.

其中that do not specify fee arrangements指的是前面的the one，这句话的意思是：例如一种对广告的限制，这种限制是不准标明费用。

而不是双重否定。