OG12 CR 56

aiaizun

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.

如果政府去除了“禁止广告中没有明确费用管理明细”这条，那么有可能律师们会加价，也可能不变，但是总体的用户的法律咨询费用将降
低是为什么呢？不应该提高吗？

aiaizun

[/quote]

Unwarranted NEW INFORMATION: 减掉之后做广告的律师就可能会像没做广告的律师一样收较贵的费用

A common mistake for a GMAT test-taker is to ADD his or her OWN assumption to the passage and argument. No where in the passage can one find "减掉之后做广告的律师就可能会像没做广告的律师一样收较贵的费用".

Follow the logic chain rightfully pointed out by Floor 1.

-- by 会员 sdcar2010 (2012/2/10 2:54:01)

[/quote]

也就是说在题目中的意思是：打广告的律师收费比不打广告的律师收费低——限制少打广告的律师多——法律服务花费降低？

sdcar2010

限制减少减的是“广告中明确收费”这一条，减掉之后做广告的律师就可能会像没做广告的律师一样收较贵的费用，所以消费应该增长啊？

-- by 会员 aiaizun (2012/2/9 18:35:21)

Unwarranted NEW INFORMATION: 减掉之后做广告的律师就可能会像没做广告的律师一样收较贵的费用

A common mistake for a GMAT test-taker is to ADD his or her OWN assumption to the passage and argument. No where in the passage can one find "减掉之后做广告的律师就可能会像没做广告的律师一样收较贵的费用".

Follow the logic chain rightfully pointed out by Floor 1.

aiaizun

限制减少减的是“广告中明确收费”这一条，减掉之后做广告的律师就可能会像没做广告的律师一样收较贵的费用，所以消费应该增长啊？

manxeon

放宽对于广告限制-〉律师可以做广告-〉做广告的律师收费少-〉咨询费用降低