OG10th-12神哪这道题是神马意思，谁帮我翻一下

xiaoxiaomi

12. 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 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

E. Most lawyers who advertise specific services do not lower their fees for those services when they begin to advertise.

sdcar2010

The argument assumes that if a lawyer advertises his/her service, he/she would lower its price to become more attractive to potential clients.

If E is right, lawyers won't lower their fees simply because they want a competitive price in their ad. Then the removal of the ristriction on advertisement won't bring down the price lawyers are already charging. E weakens the argument.