ChaseDream
搜索
返回列表 发新帖
查看: 1839|回复: 6
打印 上一主题 下一主题

og-12看了讨论还是一个疑问

[复制链接]
楼主
发表于 2006-2-23 10:47:00 | 只看该作者

og-12看了讨论还是一个疑问



12. 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 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.





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
of 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 th eir advertisements would continue to do so even if the  specification were
not required.   E



E. Most lawyers who advertise specific
services do not lower their fees for those services when they begin to advertise.

问题在d,看见讨论说文章并没有讨论specify fee arrangement的事情,但是原文里面的确提到了它啊,为什么说是irrelevant呢??


沙发
 楼主| 发表于 2006-2-23 10:55:00 | 只看该作者
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.

这里的结论说if remove restrictions such as ....do not specify fee arrangement,  costs will be lower.

那么d里面说lawyers即使不要求(也就是remove了restrictions),他们仍然会specify fee
arrangements in their advertisements,那么cost也就不会降低,这不就是削弱了结论么???

问题出在哪里???,,,,,,
板凳
发表于 2006-2-23 22:46:00 | 只看该作者
原文中的说‘DO NOT SPECIFY FEE ARRANGEMENT”是RESTRICTION 而D中说的律师是SECIFY FEE ARRANGEMENT的 所以是IRRELEVANT的吧
地板
发表于 2006-11-20 01:39:00 | 只看该作者

与OVERALL CONSUMER COSTS 无关!

5#
发表于 2006-11-20 12:13:00 | 只看该作者

Most lawyers who now specify fee arrangements in th eir advertisements would continue to do so

D is talking about specifing fee arrangements that were irrelvant to the arg.

Specifing is an action that was far from the point of view.

6#
发表于 2006-11-21 14:33:00 | 只看该作者

og的解释是说和cost无关,因为这个选项在强调律师们有没有继续在广告中保留某个内容,这和cost,也就是最后的价格是没有关系的,这个题可以用这个图:

restriction限制了广告:取消restriction,广告就多了:广告多了,价格就降了

而11,12题就是在这两个环节上出的!!

我的QQ是184161344,我们的复习进度看来差不多,希望和你讨论,共同进步!

7#
发表于 2006-11-21 17:00:00 | 只看该作者
plus, as i see it, such as part is employed to illustrate the main point, making a concept more clear. the context of the example does not usually make a difference. if you understand the point, you can forget the example or even skip it. (not for RC )
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

Mark一下! 看一下! 顶楼主! 感谢分享! 快速回复:

手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2024-10-3 18:27
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2023 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部