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 declines in consequence. Howerver, eliminating the state requirement that legal advertisements must specify fees for specific services would almost certainly icrease 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 arrangments, many lawyeres who now advertise would increase their fees. In the consumer advocate's argument ,the two potions in boldface play which of the following roles?
a. The first is a generalizaion that the consumer advocate accepts as true; the second is presented as a consequence that follows from the truth of that generalization.
b. Ther 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.
c. The first is a pattern of cause and effect taht the consumer advocate predicts will not hold in the case at issue;the second offers a consideration in support of that prediction.
d. The first is evidence that the consumer advocate offers in supportof a certain prediction; the second is that prediction.
e. The first acknowledges a considerration that weighs against the main position that the consumer advocate defends; the second is that positon.
answer: c
anyone may explain the logic of this question? i'm confused
