In countries where automobile insurance includes compensation for whip

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