Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Mar 2911:30 AM EDT
-12:30 PM EDT
Learn how Keshav, a Chartered Accountant, scored an impressive 705 on GMAT in just 30 days with GMATWhiz's expert guidance. In this video, he shares preparation tips and strategies that worked for him, including the mock, time management, and more.
Mar 3005:30 AM PDT
-07:30 AM PDT
We know Strengthen and Weaken questions account for more than 50% of the CR questions on the GMAT. With CR becoming even more important on GMAT Focus, it's time you strengthen your weaknesses with an approach that improves your solving time and accuracy!
Mar 3011:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this session to evaluate your current skill level, learn process skills, and solve through tough Arithmetic questions.
Mar 3110:00 AM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
The Target Test Prep team has recently introduced TTP OnDemand GMAT, a 400-hour live masterclass video course created by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder and CEO of Target Test Prep.
Apr 0308:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Full-length FE mock with insightful analytics, weakness diagnosis, and video explanations!
Updated on: 23 Oct 2022, 22:09
Originally posted by perfectstranger on 19 Aug 2009, 15:02.
Last edited by Bunuel on 23 Oct 2022, 22:09, edited 6 times in total.
Last edited by Bunuel on 23 Oct 2022, 22:09, edited 6 times in total.
Renamed the topic and edited the question.
Kudos
Bookmarks
D
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
65%
(hard)
Question Stats:
59% (02:11) correct
41%
(02:27)
wrong
based on 12381
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
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.
Similar Question (Different Boldface) : LINK
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.
Similar Question (Different Boldface) : LINK
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.
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.
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.
Similar Question (Different Boldface) : LINK
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.
Similar Question (Different Boldface) : LINK
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.
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.
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
12 Jun 2011, 00:45
Kudos
Bookmarks
siddhans
Can someone please explain this using POE....
Also, please list all the premises and conclusions ...
Clear explanation will be awareded with Kudos
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.
Summary:
Frequency of Whiplash injury reports in country where the injury is covered is MORE than the frequency in the country where it is not covered.
There is no proven method to determine whether the report is genuine or fake because there is no way to determine whether the person really suffered the whiplash injury.
Commentators: Ah!!! We can tell you why the country with coverage has more reports. It is because half the reports in those countries are fake. So, if 100 people reported the injury, 50 of them were lying in order to gain some benefit from the insurance companies, for those people know they can't be proven wrong as there is no way to detect whether they really have the injury.
Author's conclusion: The conclusion drawn by commentators using the facts may not be true.
Author reasoning for his conclusion: Increased frequency may be because of the fact that in the countries with insurance policy, there is a clear advantage for people to report the cases as opposed to in the countries without insurance policy. So, in countries with policy, people know that they would get some help from the insurance companies and thus report the injuries. Countries without policy, people know that they won't gain any help/advantage by reporting their injuries, so why report?
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.
The first is not a claim. Ignore
(B) The first is a claim that has been used to
support a conclusion that the argument accepts;
the second is that conclusion.
The first is not a claim. Ignore
(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.
The first is an evidence, yes. Come back to it later.
Note, although the first one is an evidence, it is not used to support anyone's conclusion, neither the author's nor the commentators. On the contrary, this evidence is the root cause of argument that both parties make. Thus, the author and the commentators are making their arguments in order to justify this evidence and definitely this evidence doesn't help either of them in their conclusion.
Second one is not the main(author's) conclusion. It is a statement in support of the conclusion. See the summary.
Now, we are left with only "D". Let's see what that says.
(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, yes. Come back to it later.
implications are at issue: Correct. Implication drawn by commentators is indeed the issue.
second argue against the implication: Yes, it does argue against the implication. Whether the claim is the right word; I would have liked phrases such as justification of the argument, author's reasoning, support of author's claim;
Either that, D is certainly best of the lot.
(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 first is a finding, yes. Let's see what the rest of it says.
finding's accuracy is evaluated: wrong. Nowhere do we see that the finding is wrong. The entire passage is treating this finding as true. Commentators treated them true and so did the author.
Also, the second one is not an evidence. Second one is authors rebuttal for commentator's claim. The second doesn't show us any statistics or tell us any facts from some study. It can't be evidence. Let's get back to the other statements C and D.
Also, please list all the premises and conclusions ...
Clear explanation will be awareded with Kudos
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.
Summary:
Frequency of Whiplash injury reports in country where the injury is covered is MORE than the frequency in the country where it is not covered.
There is no proven method to determine whether the report is genuine or fake because there is no way to determine whether the person really suffered the whiplash injury.
Commentators: Ah!!! We can tell you why the country with coverage has more reports. It is because half the reports in those countries are fake. So, if 100 people reported the injury, 50 of them were lying in order to gain some benefit from the insurance companies, for those people know they can't be proven wrong as there is no way to detect whether they really have the injury.
Author's conclusion: The conclusion drawn by commentators using the facts may not be true.
Author reasoning for his conclusion: Increased frequency may be because of the fact that in the countries with insurance policy, there is a clear advantage for people to report the cases as opposed to in the countries without insurance policy. So, in countries with policy, people know that they would get some help from the insurance companies and thus report the injuries. Countries without policy, people know that they won't gain any help/advantage by reporting their injuries, so why report?
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.
The first is not a claim. Ignore
(B) The first is a claim that has been used to
support a conclusion that the argument accepts;
the second is that conclusion.
The first is not a claim. Ignore
(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.
The first is an evidence, yes. Come back to it later.
Note, although the first one is an evidence, it is not used to support anyone's conclusion, neither the author's nor the commentators. On the contrary, this evidence is the root cause of argument that both parties make. Thus, the author and the commentators are making their arguments in order to justify this evidence and definitely this evidence doesn't help either of them in their conclusion.
Second one is not the main(author's) conclusion. It is a statement in support of the conclusion. See the summary.
Now, we are left with only "D". Let's see what that says.
(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, yes. Come back to it later.
implications are at issue: Correct. Implication drawn by commentators is indeed the issue.
second argue against the implication: Yes, it does argue against the implication. Whether the claim is the right word; I would have liked phrases such as justification of the argument, author's reasoning, support of author's claim;
Either that, D is certainly best of the lot.
(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 first is a finding, yes. Let's see what the rest of it says.
finding's accuracy is evaluated: wrong. Nowhere do we see that the finding is wrong. The entire passage is treating this finding as true. Commentators treated them true and so did the author.
Also, the second one is not an evidence. Second one is authors rebuttal for commentator's claim. The second doesn't show us any statistics or tell us any facts from some study. It can't be evidence. Let's get back to the other statements C and D.
