In countries where automobile insurance includes compensation for whip

“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” – The statement is written in a factual form, like reporting of a finding. The author simply states a fact that whiplash injuries are more commonly reported in countries where the automobile insurance includes compensation for such injuries.
“Presently, no objective test for whiplash exists, so it is true that spurious reports of whiplash injuries cannot be readily identified” – The author first presents a fact – no objective test for whiplash exists – and then presents his opinion or an intermediate conclusion – 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” – This statement is quite complex and may induce errors in understanding in a lot of people. Let’s understand. Firstly, it begins with ‘Nevertheless’, which means that something counter to the previous statement is going to come here. “these facts…” here refer to previous conclusion (that spurious reports of whiplash injuries cannot be readily identified) and the first statement. You can see how an intermediate conclusion is referred to as a fact in the next statement. So what is this statement – this statement is author’s opinion and may be the overall conclusion of the argument.
“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.” – Read it along with the previous statement. In this statement, the author provides justification for his opinion that the commentators are wrong in drawing their conclusion. The author says that in countries which don’t include compensation for whiplash injuries, people don’t have the incentive to report such injuries. This statement is author’s justification to support his conclusion.

BF1: Fact from which a conclusion has been drawn in the argument.
BF2: Author’s justification to support the conclusion of the argument
Answer Choice Analysis

Now, let’s look at options A, C & E

Option E – BF1: we see that BF1 is indeed an evidence of the conclusion of commentators. Besides, there is further evidence for this conclusion in statement 2, which is also used as a premise for the conclusion.

BF2: As we have understood above, BF2 is not the main conclusion. It is author’s justification to support the conclusion of the argument.
So, option E eliminated.

Option C – BF1: We see that BF1 is a finding whose implication could refer to the conclusion drawn by the commentators. This conclusion is at issue. First part is correct.

BF2: is it a claim? Yes, it is presented like a view of the author. Is it presented against some implication of the BF1? Yes, it is presented as a view to counter the conclusion of the commentators.
So, option C could be correct.

Option A – We have seen that BF1 is treated like a fact in the argument and its accuracy is nowhere evaluated. Thus, this is incorrect.

So, we find that option C is the correct answer.




Key takeaways:

Bold Face questions test your ability of complex reasoning, which essentially, is a test of your skill to think clearly and logically in complex scenarios.

While development of these skills is essential, an efficient and effective approach is also required to achieve the desired results.

Presence of skills and a good approach will take you far; however, to achieve mastery, you will also need practice. Practice of BF questions will allow you to figure out your common pitfalls so that you can avoid those during the actual test.
Like the post? Share the knowledge!