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?

IDENTIFY CONCLUSION: 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.
> BF2 = premise supporting the Conclusion

(A) 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.
- BF2 is NOT a consequence...

(B) 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.
- BF2 does not acknowledge a circumstance in which a pattern (identified by BF1) does not hold

(C) 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.
- correct as is. pattern will not hold b/c author goes on to say that eliminating requirements would increase costs (instead of eliminating them). also, BF2 is supporting the prediction (conclusion)

(D) The first is evidence that the consumer advocate offers in support of a certain prediction; the second is that prediction.
- BF2 is not a conclusion or prediction -- it is evidence/a premise

(E) The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the main position that the consumer advocate defends; the second is that position.
- BF2 is not a conclusion

What is great about this question is once you've identified the Conclusion, it's easy to spot what BF2 does (support the conclusion). Examine the A/C -- all of the incorrect ones do not categorize BF2 properly.