OG 11 的61题不理解，请大家指导

大致翻了一下以前的讨论，没看到讨论这道题的，如有也麻烦大家告诉偶一下。

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.

61. 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 specific services do not lower their fees for those services when they begin to advertise.

OG 解释

Argument Evaluation

Situation Consumer legal costs will be reduced if the state removes even one restriction on lawyers' advertisements because the fewer the restrictions, the greater the number of lawyers who advertise, and lawyers who advertise charge less than lawyers who do not advertise. (The same as the previous item.)

Reasoning What point weakens the conclusion about lower consumer costs? The conclusion relies upon the supposition that lawyers who currently advertise charge the consumer less than other lawyers for the same legal services. What if this does not continue to hold true? If more lawyers begin to advertise, they may not charge any less for their services than they did previously, and they are, given the supposition, likely to be more expensive than those who currently advertise. In this case, increasing the number of lawyers who advertise would not lower overall consumer legal costs.

A     The removal of other restrictions does not affect consumer legal costs.

B     The argument is about lowering consumer costs through increasing the number of lawyers who advertise, not about the likelihood of the state's removing restrictions on such advertising.

C     The quality of the legal services is irrelevant to the cost of these services.,

D     The content of the ad is irrelevant.

E     Correct.
            This statement properly identifies a point that weakens the conclusion that less-restricted advertising will result in lower costs. While it may be true that more lawyers will advertise if there are fewer restrictions, the cost paid by consumers will not decrease if most of the newly advertising lawyers do not charge lower fees.

我的问题：

前提中说：the lawyers who advertise a specific service usually charge less for that service than the lawyers who do not advertise 而正确选项E中又说Most lawyers who advertise specific services do not lower their fees for those services when they begin to advertise。感觉有点反对前提啊？如果硬要往答案上靠，可否这样理解：在取消限制前，advertise a specific service的律师比不advertise的律师收费低；而取消限制后的情况和以前不一样了，不一定这样做的律师收费就比不这样的律师收费低了？有点糊涂，请大家指导

推论：the state removes any of its current restric

结论：overall consumer legal costs will be lower than if the state retains its current restrictions

攻击结论

找一个即使按前提（前面我没搞下来的都是前提）做了，也没有这个结论的就可以了

LZ再想想，不懂再问吧

我的核心问题是：认为E是在否定前提。但我查了一下以前关于这道题的讨论，有两位同学说的我比较同意，基本解释了我的疑问：

1）skyzhang：http://forum.chasedream.com/dispbbs.asp?BoardID=24&ID=249737&replyID=2339013&skin=1

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。）

2）twinkle99：http://forum.chasedream.com/dispbbs.asp?BoardID=24&ID=234994&replyID=2487555&skin=1

文中的前提是“打广告的律师费用比没打广告的律师费用低”，这是在不同的人中进行对比；

但E的weaken是“没打过广告的律师开始打广告费用不一定比自己以前收费低”，这是同一个人打广告前后的对比。

综上，E是说虽然限制去除了，打广告的律师多了，但这批才开始打广告的律师收取的费用不一定比以前低，所以消费者的legal cost并不能得到减少。

但还有一个小问题：当一个律师做了广告，他就不是自己和自己比了，而是把自己分到“做广告”那部分里面了。那么如何能体现前提说的：“打广告的律师费用比没打广告的律师费用低”，只能是降价啰。针对这个问题，麻烦哪位牛人给彻底解释一下，不胜感谢。

LS把你的逻辑思路链写一下，我发觉你已经逻辑混乱了。我把推论和结论写了很清楚了我个人觉得，攻击结论只要找到消费者成本不低就可以了，什么比较这个群体那个群体。我看了都眼花，记得Lawyer前辈从来就不会那么绕的去想题，你跳出自己的思维模式，从头把题念一下，然后把推论和结论写出来。

原文结论是：overall consumer legal costs will be lower than if the state retains its current restrictions

现在做广告的8快，不做的10块。全部做广告要满足结论就是说要比8块更低，就是说要6块，那E说我Most lawyers who advertise specific services do not lower their fees ，就是不会再比8块低了。那不久是无法更便宜了吗

是不是这个意思啊，我自己都被你搞住了，再想想吧。反正肯定不是什么群体对比，又不是做语法找修饰关系，整那玩意干啥

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

登广告时不降低费用和登广告律师收费普遍较低是不矛盾的（其他很多原因可以导致这个结果如登广告那帮律师名气低生意不好所以登广告，自然费用低啊）

这道题作者的考点是Weaken了一个从事实上看似合理的推论——广告上的收费低是因为律师降低了费用，如果以上关系不存在，最后的结论当然也不成立啦！

谢谢6楼tianyi_2003的解释，我好像明白了

能否这样理解：一部分律师由于取消限制去登广告，并不能改变登广告律师收费普遍较低的状况，因为：比如这部分律师原来收费8元，登了广告还是8元，但那些始终不登广告的牛律师一直收费10元。所以不登的收费还是大于登的，这和前提吻合。

原文的论据：对律师作广告的限制越少，作广告的律师就越多。并且，作广告的律师收费比不作广告的律师的收费要低。

原文的结论：为了降低消费者的收费，应该取消对律师作广告的限制。

原文逻辑链的漏洞在于：作广告的律师收费更低是否是由于他作了广告的缘故。完全可以因为其他的原因收费低，比如作广告的律师都是刚拿到执照的律师。

选项E很好地打击了原文逻辑链的漏洞，表明了作广告这件事并不是导致收费低的原因。