OG-11

[玩命去]

對不起.....我改好了

11.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.

If the statements above are true, which of the following must be true?

(A) Some lawyers who now advertise will charge more for specific services if they do not have to specify fee arrangements in the advertisements.
(B) More consumers will use legal services if there are fewer restrictions on the advertising of legal services.
(C) If the restriction against advertisements that do not specify fee arrangements is removed, more lawyers will advertise their services.
(D) 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.
(E) 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.

Ans: C

可不可以告訴我題目在說什麼?.....霧煞煞ㄟ
尤其是 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.
謝謝囉!!

[evelight]

這位同學，題目要貼完整
請參考版規
http://www.formosamba.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=158

請至文章右上角按編輯重貼題目+完整選項+正確答案
不然大家是沒辦法回答你的喔

[evelight]

幫你附上正確答案。

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.

--> 如果國家移除了任何現行的限制法令，例如移除對未標明收費標準的廣告的限制，
整體消費者的法律成本將會降低(相較起保留這些現行法令)

反芻一下，這樣題目在說什麼大概了解了嗎？
不懂再提出來喔

另外OG205跟這題有點相關，有空可以研究一下

[cheyen]

幫你附上正確答案。

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.

--> 如果國家移除了任何現行的限制法令，例如移除對未標明收費標準的廣告的限制，
整體消費者的法律成本將會降低(相較起保留這些現行法令)
----------------------------------------------------
Sorry,可以在做一下導讀嗎^^
I mean 與這提結論前的幾段 題目走的動線...
我越看越花耶....
前面是講越少限制的話,越多律師會登越多的廣告及標明收費標準的廣告...後面就煩請解答一下 也不知道我的理解對不對
多謝嚕

[briandragon]

高手~~
可以幫防解釋ㄧ下
爲何答案是~~C

(C) If the restriction against advertisements that do not specify fee arrangements is removed, more lawyers will advertise their services.

[evelight]

前面是講越少限制的話,越多律師會登越多的廣告及標明收費標準的廣告...
後面就煩請解答一下 也不知道我的理解對不對
多謝嚕

愈少限制則愈多律師登廣告，
並且登廣告的律師通常比不登廣告的收較低的費用。
因此，如果移除任何的限制，例如開放不標明收費的廣告
整體消費者成本將會降低

本題是推論題，要在題目皆為真的前提下，以題目為唯一線索來源作推論，而ABDE都無法從題目中合理推論。

這樣cheyen有抓到題目的脈絡嗎？

[whitneyed]

請問一下各位前輩
這種題目是有點類似assumption題目嗎?

不知道我這樣的想法對不對......

[dibert8]

assumption 好像是問題目裡沒有的,這題答案就是第一句說的,看成閱讀測驗吧!

[lelapin]

請問一下,
廢除對未標收費標準的廣告限制,會使消費者的法律成本降低.

--所以是希望廢除還是不廢除?
我覺得是要標明收費標準對消費者是好的,那位啥要廢除?

C選項 這樣的限制被廢除,會使得更多的律師登廣告.

--不過,登廣告不是不好的嗎?


有點混亂了,麻煩解釋依下,謝謝啦!