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. 答案选c为什么a选项中og说The lawyers may charge more,but nothing in the passage rules out the possibility that no lawyer will charge more
这题主要是讨论律师打不打广告，有多少律师打广告。 不是律师打了广告后收费变多变少的问题，题中根本没有提供足够的信息来推出A, 所以OG说The lawyers may charge more,but nothing in the passage rules out the possibility that no lawyer will charge more
你贴的题目，我看了好几遍，我之前做过了可是不记得答案了，最终我选了C，下面是很傻的我巨细无比的思路： The fewer restrictions there are on the advertising of legal services, the more lawyers there are who advertise their services, 对法律事务服务限制约定越少，给自己广告宣传的律师就越多， and the lawyers who advertise a specific service usually charge less for that service than the lawyers who do not advertise. 而且，广告说自己有特殊服务的律师经常对那个特殊服务收费低于没有打广告的律师（and后面是重点）。 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.因此，如果政府移除现在的限制规定，哪些规定呢？比方说反对宣传者不报价的规定，这样的话，百姓的法务开支就会低于如果政府不取消的情况。 If the statements above are true, which of the following must be true?如果上面的叙述是真的，那么下面的表述也是真的：
(A) Some lawyers who now advertise will charge more for specific services if they do not have to specify fee arrangements in the advertisements. （某些）律师会更高的费用，在不需要的报价的情况 这个选项应该排除： 1，政府预测的是百姓的开支会减少，因为律师收费少，那么选项起码应该跟这两者相关吧，题目在说费用会降低，A选项说收费会增高，上面的题目推不出选项的，我们只知道打广告没限制，只知道律师收费会低，只知道百姓会节省钱，我们不该去管律师会涨钱这事 (B) More consumers will use legal services if there are fewer restrictions on the advertising of legal services. 消费者的行为取向，文章都没说起过，不该选 (C) If the restriction against advertisements that do not specify fee arrangements is removed, more lawyers will advertise their services. C就说得过去了 1.如果取消了限制，没更多的律师的用那广告了，那就瞎了，政策无效 2.没有更多律师用广告了，那还是现在这点老打广告的，百姓也不会有更多的费用节省 (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. 其他的律师的反应，文章都没说起过，不该选 (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. 就在说取消收费明细的事情，那别的规定就偏远了
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2012-10-4 17:17:46
收藏
收藏
楼主
用有关无关来分析噶 ，这我就懂了开始太钻牛角尖了