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.

thanks a lot!

It's C.

Take a look at the first bold face.

It is clearly finding and not claim. So D and E are out.

A and B states that the argument evaluates accuracy of the bold face 1 that is not true. Argument never contests the fact, on the other hand, it explains the outcome of the finding. So C is right.

I preffer A).
In C there are implications that i can not see.

Will go with C here.

"the second is an intermediate conclusion that has been used to support a conclusion that the argument criticizes"
The agrees that some commentators are right in saying that reports of whiplash injuries cannot be readily identified since no objective test is available. This is an intermediate conclusion.
The author also refutes that using the intermediate conclusion you cannot draw another conclusion that is "half of the reported cases are spurious"

"D"