扫描二维码，直接登录
题库 / Prep2012-CR-52
Consumer advocate: It is generally true, at least in this state, that lawyers who advertise a specific service charge less for that service than lawyers who do not advertise. It is also true that each time restrictions on the advertising of legal services have been eliminated, the number of lawyers advertising their services has increased and legal costs to consumers have declined in consequence. However, eliminating the state requirement that legal advertisements must specify fees for specific services would almost certainly increase rather than further reduce consumers' legal costs. Lawyers would no longer have an incentive to lower their fees when they begin advertising and if no longer required to specify fee arrangements, many lawyers who now advertise would increase their fees.
In the consumer advocate's argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?
The first is a generalization that the consumer advocate accepts as true; the second is presented as a consequence that follows from the truth of that generalization.
The first is a pattern of cause and effect that the consumer advocate argues will be repeated in the case at issue; the second acknowledges a circumstance in which that pattern would not hold.
The first is a pattern of cause and effect that the consumer advocate predicts will not hold in the case at issue; the second offers a consideration in support of that prediction.
The first is evidence that the consumer advocate offers in support of a certain prediction; the second is that prediction.
The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the main position that the consumer advocate defends; the second is that position.
做黑脸题一般就想尽量快。这道题首先把握态度，it's generally true...it is also true... HOWEVER
那么前面就是opposition，句尾的in consequence表明了这句话阐述了一个结果，复合因果关系pattern of cause and effect that the consumer advocate predicts will not hold in the case at issue。
而后一个黑体字句子，是在一个虚拟语气里面，表示一种假设，a consideration in support of that prediction。选C
做黑脸题一般就想尽量快。这道题首先把握态度，it's generally true...it is also true... HOWEVER 那么前面就是opposition，句尾的in consequence表明了这句话阐述了一个结果，复合因果关系。而后一个黑体字句子，是在一个虚拟语气里面，表示一种假设，和Predict沾边。选C
题目：第一段黑体字：的确，每次取消限制以后，更多律师为自己打广告，并且律师费也降低了。
第二段黑体字：但是如果取消这个要求就不一样了（原来要求律师在广告里边要写明什么服务什么价）,很多现在打广告的律师会增加他们的律师费的。
所以第一段黑体字是个事实，第二段是个预测。
however重点在后面
C选项有点绕，第一句是说eliminate restriction will reduce legal cost for customers, 紧接着说但是，prediction就来了：eliminate restriction would increase the cost, 然后接着因为律师没有甜头了，再加上可以自我定价，那就会订高点。
所以最主要是predict了什么！！！前面根本就没有predict东西，都是说的fact，后面才有prediction
however前后的观点是对立的，且if....would no longer这里是用的虚拟语气→predict
however后面才是作者真正持有的观点
选b
cr
黑脸题
看第二句“if no longer required to specify fee arrangements, many lawyers who now advertise would increase their fees.”这是虚拟语气，提出了一个“prediction”，注意选项中用了prediction而没有用conclusion；
而且第一二句中间有however转折，说明前后是矛盾的点，前后不同态度的只有bc选项，选c
However, eliminating the state requirement that legal advertisements must specify fees for specific services would almost certainly increase rather than further reduce consumers' legal costs. 是结论
最后一句话是证据
however前：反对
however后：支持
in consequence暗示cause and effect
at issue争论中
错选了E：position比较主观，但是第二部分黑体是比较客观的consideration或evidence
man conclusion:However, eliminating the state requirement that legal advertisements must specify fees for specific services would almost certainly increase rather than further reduce consumers' legal costs. 取消针对律师在广告中明确服务收费的限制最终会使得消费者的费用增加，而不是减少。
第一个黑体：用于支持counter-conclusion的evidence
第二个黑体：用于支持conclusion的evidence
两个部分是相反的意思，取b或者c，后部分是作者支持的结论，选c
hold持有支持，错选了b
however后面是结论，前面是opposition,第二个句子支持文章结论。
难题...
考场上不要纠结意思 大致懂就ok
boldface题要快速地理清楚结论以及argument中的对立情况
做黑脸题一般就想尽量快。这道题首先把握态度，it's generally true...it is also true... HOWEVER 那么前面就是opposition，句尾的in consequence表明了这句话阐述了一个结果，复合因果关系。而后一个黑体字句子，是在一个虚拟语气里面，表示一种假设，和Predict沾边。选C
弄清楚有几个发言人 几个立场
in consequence对应cause and effect，c错在repeat in the case at issue，从后面的however看出，这个pattern will not hold in the case at issue (就是however后的case)
E错在第二个不是position
Premise: 当律师们开始做广告，他们便不再有降低律师服务费的动机。如果不再被要求明确具体收费安排，很多现在做广告的律师将会提高收费。
Conclusion：取缔对法律广告必须明确具体费用的要求肯定会造成消费者需要支付更高的律师费。
main conclusion:However, eliminating the state requirement that legal advertisements must specify fees for specific services would almost certainly increase rather than further reduce consumers' legal costs.