扫描二维码，直接登录
题库 / OG2015-CR-54
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.
If the statements above are true, which of the following must be true?
Some lawyers who now advertise will charge more for specific services if they do not have to specify fee arrangements in the advertisements.
More consumers will use legal services if there are fewer restrictions on the advertising of legal services.
If the restriction against advertisements that do not specify fee arrangements is removed, more lawyers will advertise their services.
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.
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.
简单类结论题（难度系数650）：第一步找IF选项，第二部IF选项里找条件部分原文有重现过的。复杂类结论题（难度系数700），没有带IF的选项，也没有原文重现过的部分。
restriction反对广告中不写明价格，也就是说restriction取消后，广告中可以不写价格。错选D，第一句错了，律师不应该在广告中写价格。
In the second sentence:
The state relaxes the restrictions (1)
Costs will go down (3)
What is missing in the logic of the second sentence, then, is (2) - why will the costs go down?
According to our opening sentence, fees are lower when more services are advertised (2). This is what (C) says.
Let's make this passage into a semblance of logic:
Fewer restrictions on advertising = 1
More lawyers advertise = 2
Lawyers who advertise charge less than those who do not = 3
The first sentence of the passage now reads:
If 1,
then 2,
then 3.