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 notadvertise. 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.
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.
答案是E 我选择的D
不太明白E是什么意思?
选D 是因为五个都很别扭的情况下,我就开了个脑洞,按照D 说的有没有这个restriction他们都会这么做,那我觉得就相当于这个restriction本来对他们就没有什么影响,所以撤了也不会增加advertise 的人数(我自己也觉得脑洞比较大,只是E 没看懂是什么意思)
|