Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
In countries where automobile insurance includes [#permalink]
24 Sep 2009, 19:33
63% (03:40) correct
36% (01:45) wrong based on 11 sessions
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
Re: In countries where automobile insurance includes [#permalink]
28 Jan 2012, 08:57
This post received KUDOS
The second boldface in non the conclusion (note clearly as word in front of)....so suddenly A B C are out
beween D and E we have : reports of having suffered such injuries are twice as frequent as they are in countries .................people often have little incentive to report whiplash injuries that they actually have suffered.
So the second one is against the first one. D wins
What is the level of this question ???
KUDOS is the good manner to help the entire community.
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.