jonnysunn Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 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 italic script play which of the following roles? The first is a generalization that the consumer advocate accepts as true; the second is presented as a consequence that follows from the truth of that generalization. The 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. 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. The first is evidence that the consumer advocate offers in support of a certain prediction; the second is that prediction. The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the main position that the consumer advocate defends; the second is that position.so 2 or 3?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tweety32 Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 imo 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gdaga Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 IMO with 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aspired Roark Posted May 9, 2007 Share Posted May 9, 2007 I also think its 2, tweety 32 can u just explain why do u think its 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perry Posted May 10, 2007 Share Posted May 10, 2007 It looks 2 to me. OA? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aqueel Posted May 10, 2007 Share Posted May 10, 2007 It is 3, and so is the OA. why it is not 2? well, "The 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." - the first part itself is not true. the advocate is arguing that the pattern won't be repeated at issue. check this "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". hope it helps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catchamogh Posted May 10, 2007 Share Posted May 10, 2007 3 it is.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.