逻辑 Critical Reasoning-7608

标记
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 consumer's 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?

【选项】The first is 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.

选项是否正确?

  • 正确
  • 错误

正确的用户笔记

0个赞

太阳能宝宝 2015-08-27 12:03:29

逻辑链:1.对的:打广告的律师收费比不打广告的要低。2.也是对的:每次取消对法律服务打广告的限制,打广告的律师增加了,因而消费者的法律成本降低。3.然而,消除限制增加而非较少了消费者的法律成本。4.律师不愿意降低费用当他们开始打广告时并且一旦不需要列明收费安排,不打广告的律师提高他们的律师费。 思路:prediction是 HOWEVER后面这句,关于广告了之后消费者costs会减少。同上面那句有对比。若没有了国家规定反而会增加消费者的花销。就算是作者给的结论。而后面两句算是原因,律师没有了动机去降价,反而会加价。

0个赞

zxlzxl750 2015-04-29 11:56:12

prediction是 HOWEVER后面这句,关于广告了之后消费者costs会减少。同上面那句有对比。若没有了国家规定反而会增加消费者的花销。就算是作者给的结论。而后面两句算是原因,律师没有了动机去降价,反而会加价。

0个赞

libeili 2015-10-19 14:02:36

广告限制少,广告多,费少 但是,如果不需要明码标价,那么会费多、 第二句的情况和第二句是不一样的。在第二个情况下,第一个情况的现象不会出现。为什么呢?第二个黑体就解释了。。。。

0个赞

咩ssimo_Lucky 2016-11-15 19:49:28

however的让步语气,尽管每次取消限制都下降,但是更重要的是,,,所以事实上前一种情况,观点持有者,即consumer advocate是不支持的

0个赞

咩ssimo_Lucky 2016-11-15 19:49:28

however的让步语气,尽管每次取消限制都下降,但是更重要的是,,,所以事实上前一种情况,观点持有者,即consumer advocate是不支持的

0个赞

纯洁小吹吹吹 2016-04-08 10:59:00

全篇都是consumer advocate说的,让步

0个赞

Kae6 2016-03-31 23:52:54

前面:打广告的律师收费更低,取消限制打广告后打广告的律师更多→律师费更低。后面:取消律师广告必须确定服务费的规定会使律师费增加。乐事不会再降低费用而且会提高费用。 前面是consumer advocate反对的,后面是支持结论的。

0个赞

rosereborn 2015-11-01 19:22:55

注意结论是however那一句,是C选项中的prediction。前两句虽然说it is true,但是是让步,先承认是对的,但是in the case at issue在有争议的案例中不成立。两个bf是opposite的

GMAT

考满分GMAT备考平台-公开课天天看,免费提供强大的学习做题
系统,专业优质的在线课程助你迅速提分。

GMAT考满分App

把网站装进口袋
随时随地练习

联系我们