[求助]og-11菜鸟弱问 望大牛帮忙

Question11-12 are based on the following:

11. 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 estrictions, 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 in the passage 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 service.
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.
12. 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 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.

第十一、十二题答案分别是简单地重复、反对了一下原文颜色对应部分，请问原文中绿色、红色部分为前提，为什么答案随随便便就可以把前提提了一下或者取非了一下就形成答案了呢？前提不是不能随便改的吗？请各位大牛指点迷津。谢谢！

1。对11题，是MUST BE。对我们最好的答案是原文某句话作为选项。那末我们不用想，它绝对是答案。

2。对12题，如果选项是原文某句话，那它绝对不是答案，因为没提供另外的信息。红色的两句话完全不同。原文是比较有没有广告的收费。E是比较的是开始广告和以后的收费。原文结论是个条件句，IF。。。THEN。E说IF。。。NOT THEN。所以削弱。

原文前提说：刊登详细服务广告的律师索要的费用比不刊登广告的律师的费用要低。（费用低）

答案说：当他们开始刊登广告的时候，大部分律师并不降低他们的费用。（费用高）

这里不是矛盾吗？是不是就是因为“when they begin to advertise”这个状语从句的缘故所以变得不矛盾了呢？

o 明白了  谢谢lawyer百忙中为我解答问题