I'm not sure I understood. The author seemed to be arguing that by implementing an uplift contingency, Western Australia would make life harder for everyone involved.
Reply
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
Hi @knoxygirl, thanks for your question. Answer choice (C) can be eliminated because the proposed recommendation would not "worsen the situation it was intended to improve." The applicable "situation" is the fact that contingency fee charges "generally exceed regular fees." (Lines 9-10.) Although the author explains why the recommendation would be burdensome for lawyers (Lines 30-40) and unfairly restrict access to contingency fee arrangements for prospective clients (Lines 41-48), there is no textual support for the claim that the recommendation would "worsen the situation"--i.e., make contingency fee charges even more excessive relative to regular fees.
By contrast, the passage does explain a suggested reform (that only one type of fee arrangement, the "uplift," be introduced) and critically evaluate it (the role played by the last two paragraphs of the passage).
Hope this helps! Please let us know if you have any additional questions.
