Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

 It is currently 24 Aug 2016, 01:36

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# In countries where automobile insurance includes

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 17 Jul 2008
Posts: 249
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 234 [3] , given: 29

In countries where automobile insurance includes [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Aug 2009, 15:02
3
KUDOS
3
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

76% (02:41) correct 24% (02:14) wrong based on 242 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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.

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.
(B) The first is a claim that has been used to support a conclusion that the argument accepts; the second is that conclusion.
(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.
(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.
(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.

Other type of this question exists but this is another version. Please explain in a detailed way.Nice explanation will be appreciated with kudos ) . OA after explanations.
_________________

Please give kudos if you enjoy the explanations that I have given. Thanks

Last edited by perfectstranger on 20 Aug 2009, 04:01, edited 1 time in total.
Manager
Joined: 17 Dec 2007
Posts: 106
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 56 [0], given: 8

### Show Tags

19 Aug 2009, 18:42
perfectstranger 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.[/b] 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.

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.
(B) The first is a claim that has been used to support a conclusion that the argument accepts; the second is that conclusion.
(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.
(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.
(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.

Other type of this question exists but this is another version. Please explain in a detailed way.Nice explanation will be appreciated with kudos ) . OA after explanations.

which is the first bolded statement
Manager
Joined: 17 Jul 2008
Posts: 249
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 234 [0], given: 29

### Show Tags

20 Aug 2009, 04:01
Sorry I edited the first boldpart .
_________________

Please give kudos if you enjoy the explanations that I have given. Thanks

Manager
Joined: 17 Dec 2007
Posts: 106
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 56 [0], given: 8

### Show Tags

20 Aug 2009, 10:29
perfectstranger wrote:
Sorry I edited the first boldpart .

Thanks

will work on this
Manager
Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Posts: 163
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 40 [0], given: 8

### Show Tags

20 Aug 2009, 11:13
..IMO C
I have one question ..what does 'claim' means...Is it a premise or conclusion..??(as I heard an argument is composed of only premise & conclusion)....

Well I choose C...bcoz
First evidence : 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

Second(further) evidence : Presently; no objective test for whiplash exists

Conclusion : so it is true that spurious reports of whiplash injuries cannot be readily identified

Main conclusion : 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.

I hope I m able to explain...its too difficult to point reasoning in CR
Intern
Joined: 14 Aug 2009
Posts: 36
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

23 Aug 2009, 10:00
too tricky ... IMO B since B is an easy explanation ...
wats the OA ???
_________________

Regards,
Saaquib

If you find any grammatical mistake in my post please don't hesitate in pointing out.

Please +1 if you find this post useful.

My Blog

Manager
Joined: 01 Oct 2006
Posts: 70
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 13 [0], given: 4

### Show Tags

07 Sep 2009, 06:20
Second BF statement is the main conclsion, so D and E are out, we are left with A, B and C.
First BF statement is the evidence it is not the claim, so A and B are out.

I will go with C
Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 02 Aug 2009
Posts: 3967
Followers: 246

Kudos [?]: 2626 [0], given: 97

### Show Tags

07 Sep 2009, 06:41
i think it shud be D.. i think 2nd BF is not conclusion but........ '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.' is.....
_________________

Absolute modulus :http://gmatclub.com/forum/absolute-modulus-a-better-understanding-210849.html#p1622372
Combination of similar and dissimilar things : http://gmatclub.com/forum/topic215915.html

Senior Manager
Joined: 18 Aug 2009
Posts: 328
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 267 [0], given: 13

### Show Tags

07 Sep 2009, 07:45
C, OA?
Manager
Joined: 15 Mar 2008
Posts: 51
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 25 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

07 Sep 2009, 08:34
Appears to be D.
The 1st statement is a claim that is implying that half of whiplash injuries are fake because insurance companies pay compensations for such injuries. The 2nd statement makes a claim that challenges that implication. It says that those countries in which whiplash injuries are not covered by auto insurance do not necessarily have lesser number of cases but they are not all reported since there is no point in reporting it.
Intern
Joined: 27 Aug 2009
Posts: 28
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

07 Sep 2009, 21:42
the argument states that reporting of whiplash injuries is majorly a function of incentive of getting insurance cover. The countries where no such incentive exist have fewer such cases reported.
Another part of the argument states that there is no reliable method of ascertaining such injuries so it is possible for people to report spurious cases but it will be an exaggeration to say that half of the reported cases are spurious: this part of para evaluates a possible reason of such high numbers reported i.e. an alternate explanation to the finding.

therefore.. first bolded part is a finding and the last bolded part is providing a evidences for the validity of the finding.

i would go with E.
Manager
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 79
Schools: Darden:Tepper:UCUIC:Kenan Flager:Nanyang:NUS:ISB:UCI Merage:Emory
WE 1: 3
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 7

### Show Tags

08 Sep 2009, 09:56
meenal8284 wrote:
the argument states that reporting of whiplash injuries is majorly a function of incentive of getting insurance cover. The countries where no such incentive exist have fewer such cases reported.
Another part of the argument states that there is no reliable method of ascertaining such injuries so it is possible for people to report spurious cases but it will be an exaggeration to say that half of the reported cases are spurious: this part of para evaluates a possible reason of such high numbers reported i.e. an alternate explanation to the finding.

therefore.. first bolded part is a finding and the last bolded part is providing a evidences for the validity of the finding.

i would go with E.

Hi..but u forgot the fact that the finding in the first bold sentence is " the no of cases in countries where whiplash insurance is provided is double to those in which no insuracne exists"..

the second bold sentence doesnot validate but rather goes against it.

for all others who are goin for options other than E thinkin 2nd bold sentence is a conclusion......!!!
" the 2nd bold is not a conlusion.. the sentence before it IS. this one just validates the previous sentence".

for me its E
_________________

Second cut is the deepest cut!!!:P

Intern
Joined: 20 Aug 2008
Posts: 4
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

09 Sep 2009, 23:45
IMO its E
Director
Joined: 25 Aug 2007
Posts: 954
WE 1: 3.5 yrs IT
WE 2: 2.5 yrs Retail chain
Followers: 73

Kudos [?]: 1154 [0], given: 40

### Show Tags

13 Jun 2010, 01:11
Please post the OA so that ppl can confirm there reasoning.
_________________

Tricky Quant problems: http://gmatclub.com/forum/50-tricky-questions-92834.html
Important Grammer Fundamentals: http://gmatclub.com/forum/key-fundamentals-of-grammer-our-crucial-learnings-on-sc-93659.html

Senior Manager
Joined: 18 Aug 2009
Posts: 435
Schools: UT at Austin, Indiana State University, UC at Berkeley
WE 1: 5.5
WE 2: 5.5
WE 3: 6.0
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 110 [0], given: 16

### Show Tags

13 Jun 2010, 20:06
ykaiim wrote:
Please post the OA so that ppl can confirm there reasoning.

OA is D.

OE: Reported whiplash injuries are twice as common in countries where car insurance
companies pay compensation for such injuries as they are in countries where insurance
companies do not. Although there is no objective test for whiplash, this does not mean,
as some suggest, that half of the reports of such injuries are fake. It could simply be that
where insurance will not pay for such injuries, people are less inclined to report them.

Reasoning: What roles do the two boldfaced portions play in the argument? Th e fi rst portion tells us about
the correlation between reported cases of whiplash in countries and the willingness of
insurance companies in those countries to compensate for whiplash injuries. Th e argument
next states that whiplash is diffi cult to objectively verify. Th e argument then asserts that
although this last fact, taken together with the fi rst boldfaced portion, has led some to infer
that over half of the reported cases in countries with the highest whiplash rates are spurious,
such an inference is unwarranted. Th e second boldfaced portion then helps to explain why
such an inference is not necessarily warranted by off ering an alternative explanation.
_________________

Never give up,,,

Manager
Joined: 09 Jun 2011
Posts: 92
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

12 Sep 2011, 10:08
D
Manager
Joined: 06 Jun 2012
Posts: 147
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 148 [0], given: 37

Re: In countries where automobile insurance includes [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Nov 2012, 03:47
The main conclusion of THIS argument = explain or oppose the conclusion drawn by some commentators i.e in the countries with the higher rates of reported whiplash injuries, half of the reported cases are spurious.
So that makes the 2nd BF the main conclusion of this argument.

1st BF is evidence.

Shouldnt answer choice be C. Can someone please let me know the fault in my reasoning!!
_________________

Please give Kudos if you like the post

Intern
Joined: 25 Jul 2012
Posts: 33
Location: India
GMAT Date: 08-03-2013
WE: Engineering (Computer Software)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 56

Re: In countries where automobile insurance includes [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Apr 2013, 09:07
I go with B. What is the correct OA ? Can someone explain ?
Manager
Joined: 04 Apr 2013
Posts: 153
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 39 [0], given: 36

Re: In countries where automobile insurance includes [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 May 2013, 13:37
OA is C.

http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/bf-kaplan-t670.html
_________________

MGMAT1 - 540 ( Trying to improve )

e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 1972
Followers: 1935

Kudos [?]: 6408 [5] , given: 260

Re: In countries where automobile insurance includes [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 May 2013, 09:45
5
KUDOS
Expert's post

The bold faced portions at this link are different from the ones in the given question.

The answer for the given question should be D.

Let's understand the argument:

Understanding the argument

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. - This is a fact. It compares countries where whiplash injuries are covered in automobile insurance with countries where whiplash injuries are not covered under automobile insurance. The first set of countries have twice as many reports of whiplash injuries as compared to the latter set of countries.

Presently; no objective test for whiplash exists, - This is also a fact.

so it is true that spurious reports of whiplash injuries cannot be readily identified. - This is an opinion of the author. He agrees that spurious reports of whiplash injuries cannot be easily identified. Pay attention to the language here. Even though no one has till now talked about spurious reports of whiplash injuries, the author has written this sentence in a way that shows agreement. Probably, the coming sentences will throw some light on this.

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. - Focus on 'Nevertheless'. It indicates change in direction. Now, read this statement along with the preceding statement. So, basically, in the preceding statement, the author was agreeing to the commentators, who have been referred to in this statement. So, even though the author agrees that identifying spurious cases might be a challenge, he disagrees that it means half the cases of whiplash injuries are spurious (If you are wondering why author refers to 'half' the cases, read the first statement again, which talks about twice the number of whiplash injuries).

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. - With this statement, the author reconciles his opinion (that it does not mean half the cases are spurious) with the fact stated in the first statement (that there are twice as many reports of whiplash injuries in countries where whiplash injuries are covered under automobile insurance). How does he reconcile? He reconciles by offering an alternative explanation for the fact - he says that the reason there are high reports of whiplash injuries in countries where these are covered under automobile insurances is that in these countries, people have incentive to report these injuries (they will get compensation for these injuries) whereas in other countries, people don't have incentive to report whiplash injuries because they are not going to be compensated for these injuries.

Pre-thinking

Now, if you look back and see what has happened in this argument, you can prethink the roles of the two Bold Faced parts:

The first bold faced part is an observation or fact on which the commentators based their opinion on.

The second bold faced part is an alternative explanation offered by the author, which counters the opinion of the commentators.

Now, let's analyse the option statements:

Analysis of option statements

(A) The first is a claim that the argument disputes; the second is a conclusion that has been based on that claim. - Obviously, BF1 is not disputed in the argument. Incorrect.

(B) The first is a claim that has been used to support a conclusion that the argument accepts; the second is that conclusion. - First of all, BF1 is not a claim. It is a fact or a finding or an observation but not a claim. Secondly, we know from our analysis that BF1 has been used to support an explanation (of commentators) which is countered in the passage. So, Incorrect.

(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. - Like option B, the role of BF1 is not correctly mentioned in this. Besides, BF2 is not the main conclusion of the argument. Second last statement (which is not bolded) is the main conclusion of the argument. Incorrect.

(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. - This is correct. What are the implications of BF1? The implications are the conclusion drawn by the commentators from BF1. We know that this is the issue of the argument. Besides, BF2 offers an alternate explanation for the finding to counter the explanation offered by commentators. So, the roles of both BF1 and BF2 are correctly mentioned. Correct.

(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 accuracy of BF1 is not evaluated in the argument. Incorrect.

Hope this helps.

Thanks,
Chiranjeev
_________________

| '4 out of Top 5' Instructors on gmatclub | 70 point improvement guarantee | www.e-gmat.com

Re: In countries where automobile insurance includes   [#permalink] 08 May 2013, 09:45

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 26 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
11 In countries where automobile insurance includes 11 24 Sep 2009, 20:33
In countries where automobile insurance includes 8 30 Nov 2008, 01:20
1 In countries where automobile insurance includes 6 15 Jun 2008, 19:22
In countries where automobile insurance includes 5 14 Oct 2007, 20:50
In countries where automobile insurance includes 17 11 Dec 2006, 14:30
Display posts from previous: Sort by