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 fi nding 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 fi nding whose accuracy is evaluated in the argument; the second is evidence presented to establish that the finding is accurate
OA and OE will follow later.
Responding to a pm:
The answer is (D) and not just by using POE but it makes perfect sense (also, it is an official question and the answers in those are not debatable)
Let's write the argument in our own words:
Some countries do not have compensation for whiplash injuries. There, say x whiplash injuries are reported every year. Other countries have compensation for whiplash injuries. There, 2x whiplash injuries are reported every year. Now, don't jump to the conclusion that half the reported cases (the extra x) in these countries are spurious - they are there just to get compensation. Consider that people will report whiplash only if there is a reason to report it.
The bold parts are red and blue. What roles do they play?
The red part gives us some data/finding.
Then the green part points out an implication that people derive from that data and that people should not derive it.
The blue part points out why the implication derived may not be warranted.
Option (D) says exactly this.
(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.
Do let me know if something is still unclear.
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for $199
Veritas Prep Reviews