Can someone please explain this using POE....
Also, please list all the premises and conclusions ...
Clear explanation will be awareded with Kudos 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.
Presently, no objective test for
whiplash exists, so it is true that spurious reports of
whiplash injuries cannot be readily identified.
Nevertheless, these facts do not warrant the
conclusion drawn by some commentators 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.Summary:
Frequency of Whiplash injury reports in country where the injury is covered is MORE than the frequency in the country where it is not covered.
There is no proven method to determine whether the report is genuine or fake because there is no way to determine whether the person really suffered the whiplash injury.
Commentators: Ah!!! We can tell you why the country with coverage has more reports. It is because half the reports in those countries are fake. So, if 100 people reported the injury, 50 of them were lying in order to gain some benefit from the insurance companies, for those people know they can't be proven wrong as there is no way to detect whether they really have the injury.
Author's conclusion: The conclusion drawn by commentators using the facts may not be true.
Author reasoning for his conclusion: Increased frequency may be because of the fact that in the countries with insurance policy, there is a clear advantage for people to report the cases as opposed to in the countries without insurance policy. So, in countries with policy, people know that they would get some help from the insurance companies and thus report the injuries. Countries without policy, people know that they won't gain any help/advantage by reporting their injuries, so why report?
In the argument given, the two boldfaced portions play
which of the following roles?
(A) The first is a claim that the argument disputes;
the second is a conclusion that has been based
on that claim.The first is not a claim. Ignore
(B) The first is a claim that has been used to
support a conclusion that the argument accepts;
the second is that conclusion.The first is not a claim. Ignore
(C) The first is evidence that has been used to
support a conclusion for which the argument
provides further evidence; the second is the
main conclusion of the argument.The first is an evidence, yes. Come back to it later.
Note, although the first one is an evidence, it is not used to support anyone's conclusion, neither the author's nor the commentators. On the contrary, this evidence is the root cause of argument that both parties make. Thus, the author and the commentators are making their arguments in order to justify this evidence and definitely this evidence doesn't help either of them in their conclusion.
Second one is not the main(author's) conclusion. It is a statement in support of the conclusion. See the summary.
Now, we are left with only "D". Let's see what that says.
(D) The first is a finding whose implications are at
issue in the argument; the second is a claim
presented in order to argue against deriving
certain implications from that finding.The first is a finding, yes. Come back to it later.implications are at issue: Correct. Implication drawn by commentators is indeed the issue.
second argue against the implication: Yes, it does argue against the implication. Whether the claim is the right word; I would have liked phrases such as justification of the argument, author's reasoning, support of author's claim;
Either that, D is certainly best of the lot.
(E) The first is a finding whose accuracy is evaluated
in the argument; the second is evidence
presented to establish that the finding is
accurate.The first is a finding, yes. Let's see what the rest of it says.
finding's accuracy is evaluated: wrong. Nowhere do we see that the finding is wrong. The entire passage is treating this finding as true. Commentators treated them true and so did the author.
Also, the second one is not an evidence. Second one is authors rebuttal for commentator's claim. The second doesn't show us any statistics or tell us any facts from some study. It can't be evidence. Let's get back to the other statements C and D.