OG12 - 56 诚请牛牛们指教~!!

summergal · 发表于 2009-7-12 01:13:00

The fewer restricitions 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 advertisments that do not specify fee arrangements, overall consumer legal costs will be lower than if the state retains its current restrictions.

If the statement above are true, which of the following must be true?

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 arrangments is removed, more lawyers will advertise their 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

正确答案选C. 但我觉得B和E也没错，B和E有什么致命的弱点吗？请亲爱的牛牛指点~谢谢！！

xfi883 · 发表于 2009-7-12 01:50:00

B,文章讲的是cost会降低，但没有指出consumers will use. 没有说，广告一定能招揽更多客户。

E，文章只是说，限制越少，做广告的律师越多。但这并不等于，大多数律师都会做广告。前者说的是一种可能性，后者说的是一种结论。

据个例子，“德芙巧克力越好吃，吃的人越多，因为德芙巧克力做的太好吃了，所以全球大多数人都吃德芙巧克力”。你说着逻辑对么？

summergal · 发表于 2009-7-12 01:58:00

谢谢~牛牛的解释每次都深入浅出..什么时候我也能这样思考就算睡着我都会笑醒..

牛牛你睡醒了？我可以加你msn吗>.<

xfi883 · 发表于 2009-7-12 02:02:00

刚起。别老牛牛的叫，可以啊，加吧。

summergal · 发表于 2009-7-12 02:05:00

感动ing..活雷锋...

就是牛牛，哈哈~

hsacrist6 · 发表于 2009-8-13 15:40:00

这道题我没看懂~og的解释看的自相矛盾

overthere33 · 发表于 2009-8-14 15:24:00

谨记一点归纳的范围永远不能大于题干推理的范围不然那就不是归纳而是演绎了

[此贴子已经被作者于2009/8/14 15:24:50编辑过]

rx_11 · 发表于 2010-2-11 18:00:14

A The lawyers may charge more, but nothing in the passage rules out the possibility that no lawyer
will charge more.
B No evidence in the passage indicates that there will be an increased use of legal services.
C Correct. Th is statement properly identifi es a conclusion that logically follows, because reducing
any restriction will increase the number of lawyers who advertise.
D Nothing in the passage indicates that lawyers who continue not to advertise will be compelled to
lower their fees.
E The argument concerns numbers of advertisers rather than types; it remains possible that few
lawyers would advertise.

请问NN
Q1 A选项的解释什么意思？怎么感觉自相矛盾？？but nothing in the passage rules out the possibility that no lawyer will charge more.照这么说不就对了么？？

Q2 请问E选项是什么意思呀？？我读不大懂。。。

GigiLing · 发表于 2010-3-10 23:27:31

og 说了，作逻辑题一定要排除我们惯用的常识思维，我就是受了常识误导，选了D,因为我认为越多的律师在做广告时用底价，那其他律师即使不做广告，但为了和他竞争，自然也会降低自己的价格。但是其实题目并没有提及这个方面。
选c我觉得是这样的，如果移除了对不标明价格的广告的限制，也就是说，价格爱标不标，那么根据题目的第一句话，越来越多的律师会选择做广告。c项可以说是对题目第一句话的重复，所以must be true.

song2010 · 发表于 2010-3-11 13:14:15

请问OG是真题吗？那和官方出的那本书一样吗？OG哪里有下载？谢谢

OG12 - 56 诚请牛牛们指教~!!

OG12 - 56 诚请牛牛们指教~!!

所属分类: GMAT考试

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()