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.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the argument concerning overall consumer legal costs?

Premise (facts) -

1. "The fewer restrictions on the advertising of legal services ------ the more lawyers there are who advertise their services"

which imply: Lesser restrictions will lead to more advertisements by the lawyers

2. The lawyers who advertise a specific service charge less for that service than lawyers who do not advertise.

: The one who advertise charges lesser fee for their services.

Argument-

"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.

Argument: If the state removes restrictions on advertisements, the consumer legal costs will decrease.

Option A & Option B do not attack the main argument that the consumer legal cost will decrease.

Option C does not weaken the argument.

Option D: If the lawyers will not lessen the fees even after the state removes the restrictions, then the consumer still has to bear the higher legal costs.

Hence Option D is correct.