prakhar992 wrote:
kookies wrote:
In countries where automobile insurance includes compensation for whiplash injuries sustained in automobile accidents, reports of having suffered such injuries are twice as frequent as they are in countries where whiplash is not covered. Some commentators have argued, correctly, that since there is presently no objective test for whiplash, spurious reports of whiplash injuries cannot be readily identified. These commentators are, however, wrong to draw the further conclusion that in the countries with the higher rates of reported whiplash injuries, half of the reported cases are spurious: clearly, in countries where automobile insurance does not include compensation for whiplash, people often have little incentive to report whiplash injuries that they actually have suffered.
In the argument given, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?
(A) The first is a finding whose accuracy is evaluated in the argument; the second is an intermediate conclusion drawn to support the judgment reached by the argument on the accuracy of that finding.
(B) The first is a finding whose accuracy is evaluated in the argument; the second is evidence that has been used to challenge the accuracy of that finding.
(C) The first is a finding whose implications are at issue in the argument; the second is an intermediate conclusion that has been used to support a conclusion that the argument criticizes.
(D) The first is a claim that the argument disputes; the second is a narrower claim that the argument accepts.
(E) The first is a claim that has been used to support a conclusion that the argument accepts; the second is that conclusion.
Hello
VeritasPrepHailey,
Can you please, if possible, explain this question?
Hi
prakhar992 - I'd be happy to!
So, with boldface reasoning questions, I like to break down and utilize process of elimination on three major points. When analyzing the boldface portions, try to identify whether the portions in bold
-Represent fact (evidence) or opinion (conclusion)
-Align with one another or contrast one another
-Align with the author's argument or contrast the author's argument
While you might need to take a step further in analysis occasionally, I've found that understanding the roles of the boldface portion in these three respects consistently allows you to use process of elimination to identify the correct answer without allowing you to get too caught up in lengthy, low-value-add analysis. I talk more about this strategy in
this video in case you'd like to check it out!
So, in this case - we start by reading through the entire stimulus to understand the role of each bold portion, and then we're ready to analyze! First off,
fact (evidence) vs. opinion (conclusion).
Quote:
In countries where automobile insurance includes compensation for whiplash injuries sustained in automobile accidents, reports of having suffered such injuries are twice as frequent as they are in countries where whiplash is not covered.
The first bold portion is definitely a fact! The frequency of reports is a data point, not anyone's opinion - so we can eliminate
(D) and
(E) , since both cite the first as a "claim." Finding, however, fits the description for fact/evidence we identified.
Quote:
spurious reports of whiplash injuries cannot be readily identified
The second bold portion on the other hand, is the result of what some commentators have argued, indicated by the language, "
Some commentators have argued, correctly, that
since there is presently no objective test for whiplash, ..." directly before the bold portion. So,
(B) is out too - since it incorrectly describes the second bold portion as "evidence."
From here, we're already down to (A) and (C), and can use one of our other process of elimination points!
Now, between
align with one another or contrast one another and
align with the author's argument or contrast the author's argument, I'm going to choose to focus on the latter, since this seems to be where the remaining answer choices differ. The second boldface portion is cited as an intermediate conclusion in both cases, but does it support a judgement reached by the argument (the author) or does it support a conclusion the author criticizes?
If we read past the bold portion (as we should!) we can see that the author believes that "These commentators are, however, wrong to draw the further conclusion that in the countries with the higher rates of reported whiplash injuries, half of the reported cases are spurious" and instead concludes that "clearly, in countries where automobile insurance does not include compensation for whiplash, people often have little incentive to report whiplash injuries that they actually have suffered."
So, the second boldface portion supports a conclusion that works in contrast to the author's argument, and this perfectly aligns with
(C) "the second is an intermediate conclusion that has been used to support a conclusion that the argument criticizes." (and also happens to give us great support for eliminating
(A)!)
So, by recognizing that the first bold portion is a fact/piece of evidence and the second is an opinion or conclusion of some sort and realizing that the second portion supports a further conclusion that contrasts that of the author, we can use POE to eliminate all wrong answers and correctly conclude
(C).
I hope this helps!
Best,
Hailey