Last visit was: 19 Nov 2025, 20:50

It is currently 19 Nov 2025, 20:50

Toolkit

Practice Tests

Critical Reasoning (CR)

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Go to My Error Log Learn more

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Nov 20
UCR MBA Impact - Live Q&A with UCR AdCom & Student
07:30 AM PST
-
08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
Nov 22
GMAT RC Masterclass
11:00 AM IST
-
01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment
Nov 23
Conquer Algebra on the GMAT Focus Edition
11:00 AM IST
-
01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease.
Nov 25
Try OnDemand GMAT Masterclass
10:00 AM EST
-
11:00 AM EST
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.

Back to Forum

Create Topic

In countries where automobile insurance includes compensation for whip

1 2

hc23

Joined: 21 Jan 2021

Last visit: 29 Apr 2023

Posts: 3

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 20

Posts: 3

Kudos: 1

23 Oct 2022, 17:32

Kudos

Bookmarks

The official GMAT says that A is the correct answer. Can someone explain what is right?

Bunuel

Math Expert

Joined: 02 Sep 2009

Last visit: 19 Nov 2025

Posts: 105,390

Own Kudos:

778,388

Given Kudos: 99,977

Products:

Expert

Expert reply

Posts: 105,390

Kudos: 778,388

23 Oct 2022, 22:12

Kudos

Bookmarks

hc23

The official GMAT says that A is the correct answer. Can someone explain what is right?

A is the OA to THIS the similar question. The OA for the above question is D.

BrentGMATPrepNow

Major Poster

Joined: 12 Sep 2015

Last visit: 31 Oct 2025

Posts: 6,739

Own Kudos:

35,355

Given Kudos: 799

Location: Canada

Expert

Expert reply

Posts: 6,739

Kudos: 35,355

09 Jan 2023, 08:50

Kudos

Bookmarks

perfectstranger

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.

The conclusion (i.e., what the author is trying to convince us of) follows the word 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.

In other words, we can't conclude that in the countries with the higher rates of reported whiplash injuries, half of the reported cases are fake.

Now, let's use our own words to describe the roles played by the first and second boldfaced sections.

First boldfaced part: This part provides evidence for the people who claim that half of the reported cases are fake (i.e., the claim the author is disputing).

Check the answer choices to see whether the first boldfaced part is accurately described. . .
We can eliminate B (the first part is NOT used to support the conclusion), C (the first part does NOT support the author's conclusion) and E (the author doesn't evaluate the initial findings)

Second boldfaced part: This part provides evidence for the author's conclusion.

Check the remaining answer choices to see whether the second boldfaced part is accurately described. . .
We can eliminate A because the second part is NOT the author's conclusion.

Answer: D

RishiRamdani

Joined: 29 Jun 2024

Last visit: 10 Mar 2025

Posts: 22

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 7

Location: France

GMAT Focus 1: 645 Q85 V81 DI79 Verified score

GPA: 3.5

WE:Securities Sales and Trading (Finance)

GMAT Focus 1: 645 Q85 V81 DI79 Verified score

Posts: 22

Kudos: 9

15 Aug 2024, 05:43

Kudos

Bookmarks

1/ Finding (first bold phrase): In countries where insurances cover whiplash, victims of car accident reports of having suffered such injuries are twice as frequent as they are in countries where whiplash is not covered.
2/ Argument from commentators: Because it can't be proven that a victim suffered from such injuries, some commentators say that half of the reported cases are purious.
3/ Counter argument (second bold phrase): The conclusion from the commentators might not hold because in countries where whiplash is not covered, people have little incentive to report it.

What does it imply ?
1. If people do not report whiplash injury when the insurance doesn't offer compensation, then the number of whiplash injury might be underestimated.
2. If the assumption above is true, in countries where it is covered by insurance, the number of reported case that are purious is probably less than a half and the argument from the commentators is wrong.

What am I asked: In the argument given, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?

(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.
- "The first is a finding " : Correct
- "whose implications are at issue in the argument" : Refers to the argument from commentators = Correct
- "the second is a claim presented in order to argue against deriving certain implications from that finding." : Refers to the counter argument presented in order to argue that half of the report might not be purious = Correct

Su_bha

Joined: 20 Jul 2023

Last visit: 18 Feb 2025

Posts: 11

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 37

Location: India

Posts: 11

Kudos: 3

15 Nov 2024, 11:28

Kudos

Bookmarks

KarishmaB

getmba

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.

ma'am kindly explain option E and what it mean for accuracy is evaluated. I understand bf1 further for bf1 positive and negative view is given then finally positiveness(nevertheless..... not is the case of spurious) is support by bf2.

anushree01

Joined: 06 Apr 2024

Last visit: 19 Nov 2025

Posts: 166

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 121

Schools: HBS '26 ISB '26 INSEAD Jan '26

Products:

Schools: HBS '26 ISB '26 INSEAD Jan '26

Posts: 166

Kudos: 59

26 Sep 2025, 09:14

Kudos

Bookmarks

(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.
wrong as no accuracy is evaluated of it

GMATQuizMaster

Joined: 17 Jun 2025

Last visit: 18 Nov 2025

Posts: 37

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 3

Status:Prep Company

Expert

Expert reply

Posts: 37

Kudos: 18

04 Nov 2025, 06:03

Kudos

Bookmarks

The trap in this Boldface question? Students see "clearly" and immediately assume what follows is the main conclusion.
But the actual main conclusion appears earlier without any indicator word.

The passage says: "these facts do not warrant the conclusion drawn by some commentators." That's the main conclusion. No "clearly," no "therefore," no indicator at all.

Then comes: "Clearly, in countries where automobile insurance does not include compensation for whiplash, people often have little incentive to report..." This feels like the main point because of "clearly," but it's actually just supporting claim.

Choice C traps students who depend on indicator words. It claims BF2 is the main conclusion when it's actually an intermediate conclusion supporting the real main point.

The video breaks down the exact logical structure and shows you how to update your error analysis for this question type. Check this video solution for detailed solution with error analysis:

steffe440

Joined: 29 Dec 2022

Last visit: 19 Nov 2025

Posts: 18

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 31

Location: Sweden

Posts: 18

Kudos: 3

06 Nov 2025, 10:29

Kudos

Bookmarks

(A) The argument does not dispute the mere observation / finding of BF1. Second is not really a conclusion, rather reasoning / premise supporting the author’s main conclusion.

(B) The first one, is grounded in the argument that the author disputes, the second is not a conclusion, rather a premise.

(C) The first if anything is used as evidence for an argument that the author disputes. The second is reasoning / premise for the main conclusion!

(D) Yes, the implications being that people are faking whiplashes based on how much the difference in stats are. Yes, the second supports the main conclusion, which in turn tries to refute the implications made from the stats/findings.

(E) The finding in itself is not a question, but merely what it implies. The second is not to hint that the finding is accurate, rather that the implications derived from the findings are too strong.

perfectstranger

Show Spoiler

Argument Evaluation

Situation
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? The first 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. The argument next states that whiplash is difficult to objectively verify. The argument then asserts that although this last fact, taken together with the first 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. The second boldfaced portion then helps to explain why such an inference is not necessarily warranted by offering an alternative explanation.

(A) The claim made in the first boldfaced portion is never disputed in the argument; at dispute is how to account for the fact that this claim is true. The second is not the argument's conclusion.

(B) In a manner of speaking, perhaps, the argument uses the first portion to support its conclusion; but there is no indication that it has been used elsewhere to do so. In any case, the second boldfaced portion is not the argument's conclusion.

(C) The first has been used to support a conclusion that the argument rejects; the second boldfaced portion is not the argument's conclusion.

(D) Correct. This option correctly identifies the roles played in the argument by the boldfaced portions.

(E) The accuracy of the first boldfaced portion is never questioned in the argument; nor is the second intended to somehow help show that the first is accurate. Rather, the argument assumes that the first portion is accurate.