-
Nidhs
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 69
- Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 7:12 pm
- Thanked: 3 times
- Followed by:1 members
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 in the passage 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 service.
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.
Can someone please explain to me logic behind the conclusion that states "overall consumer legal costs will be lower than if
the state retains its current restrictions."
As per what i understand, as of now lawyers are required to specify fees being charged. If this restriction were to be removed, definately more lawyers would advertise their services....but i do not understand...how will the overall consumer legal cost reduce? As of now only the lawyers charging less fees advertise. Removing the restriction on specifying fees will enable lawyers charging more money to also advertise.
I know there is a serious flaw in my reasoning but i am unable to figure it out by myself. Hope someone can correct me.
Bytheway OA id (C)
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 in the passage 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 service.
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.
Can someone please explain to me logic behind the conclusion that states "overall consumer legal costs will be lower than if
the state retains its current restrictions."
As per what i understand, as of now lawyers are required to specify fees being charged. If this restriction were to be removed, definately more lawyers would advertise their services....but i do not understand...how will the overall consumer legal cost reduce? As of now only the lawyers charging less fees advertise. Removing the restriction on specifying fees will enable lawyers charging more money to also advertise.
I know there is a serious flaw in my reasoning but i am unable to figure it out by myself. Hope someone can correct me.
Bytheway OA id (C)
