It is currently 21 Sep 2017, 12:46

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

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

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

In countries where automobile insurance includes compensation for whip

Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 17 Jul 2008
Posts: 247

Kudos [?]: 456 [6], given: 29

In countries where automobile insurance includes compensation for whip [#permalink]

Show Tags

19 Aug 2009, 15:02
6
KUDOS
25
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

75% (hard)

Question Stats:

50% (01:31) correct 50% (01:40) wrong based on 3360 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

The Official Guide for GMAT Review 2017

Practice Question
Question No.: CR638
Page: 537

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
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

Please give kudos if you enjoy the explanations that I have given. Thanks

Last edited by perfectstranger on 20 Aug 2009, 04:01, edited 1 time in total.

Kudos [?]: 456 [6], given: 29

Math Forum Moderator
Joined: 02 Aug 2009
Posts: 4909

Kudos [?]: 5227 [0], given: 112

Re: In countries where automobile insurance includes compensation for whip [#permalink]

Show Tags

07 Sep 2009, 06:41
i think it shud be D.. i think 2nd BF is not conclusion but........ '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.' is.....
_________________

Absolute modulus :http://gmatclub.com/forum/absolute-modulus-a-better-understanding-210849.html#p1622372
Combination of similar and dissimilar things : http://gmatclub.com/forum/topic215915.html

Kudos [?]: 5227 [0], given: 112

Manager
Joined: 15 Mar 2008
Posts: 50

Kudos [?]: 32 [0], given: 0

Re: In countries where automobile insurance includes compensation for whip [#permalink]

Show Tags

07 Sep 2009, 08:34
Appears to be D.
The 1st statement is a claim that is implying that half of whiplash injuries are fake because insurance companies pay compensations for such injuries. The 2nd statement makes a claim that challenges that implication. It says that those countries in which whiplash injuries are not covered by auto insurance do not necessarily have lesser number of cases but they are not all reported since there is no point in reporting it.

Kudos [?]: 32 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 77

Kudos [?]: 40 [0], given: 7

Schools: Darden:Tepper:UCUIC:Kenan Flager:Nanyang:NUS:ISB:UCI Merage:Emory
WE 1: 3
Re: In countries where automobile insurance includes compensation for whip [#permalink]

Show Tags

08 Sep 2009, 09:56
meenal8284 wrote:
the argument states that reporting of whiplash injuries is majorly a function of incentive of getting insurance cover. The countries where no such incentive exist have fewer such cases reported.
Another part of the argument states that there is no reliable method of ascertaining such injuries so it is possible for people to report spurious cases but it will be an exaggeration to say that half of the reported cases are spurious: this part of para evaluates a possible reason of such high numbers reported i.e. an alternate explanation to the finding.

therefore.. first bolded part is a finding and the last bolded part is providing a evidences for the validity of the finding.

i would go with E.

Hi..but u forgot the fact that the finding in the first bold sentence is " the no of cases in countries where whiplash insurance is provided is double to those in which no insuracne exists"..

the second bold sentence doesnot validate but rather goes against it.

for all others who are goin for options other than E thinkin 2nd bold sentence is a conclusion......!!!
" the 2nd bold is not a conlusion.. the sentence before it IS. this one just validates the previous sentence".

for me its E
_________________

Second cut is the deepest cut!!!:P

Kudos [?]: 40 [0], given: 7

Manager
Joined: 07 Jul 2009
Posts: 222

Kudos [?]: 133 [0], given: 13

Re: In countries where automobile insurance includes compensation for whip [#permalink]

Show Tags

26 Sep 2009, 20:38
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? 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.

Kudos [?]: 133 [0], given: 13

Senior Manager
Joined: 06 Jun 2009
Posts: 327

Kudos [?]: 80 [5], given: 0

Location: USA
WE 1: Engineering
Re: In countries where automobile insurance includes compensation for whip [#permalink]

Show Tags

06 Oct 2010, 07:22
5
KUDOS
ankitranjan wrote:
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 identifi ed.
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 fi nding.
(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.

Consider KUDOS if You Like this Question.

D

Just before the latter bold face, it is stated - 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.. "These Facts" refer to the facts associated with the first bold face portion. It clearly says that the first bold face should not be used to draw conclusion about blah blah blah .......... then presenting the second bold face portion. Hence, (D).
_________________

All things are possible to those who believe.

Kudos [?]: 80 [5], given: 0

Math Forum Moderator
Joined: 20 Dec 2010
Posts: 1970

Kudos [?]: 2006 [6], given: 376

Re: In countries where automobile insurance includes compensation for whip [#permalink]

Show Tags

12 Jun 2011, 00:45
6
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
siddhans wrote:
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.

_________________

Kudos [?]: 2006 [6], given: 376

Moderator
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 3348

Kudos [?]: 8742 [1], given: 1138

Re: In countries where automobile insurance includes compensation for whip [#permalink]

Show Tags

28 Jan 2012, 09:57
1
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 [?]: 8742 [1], given: 1138

e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 2231

Kudos [?]: 8797 [6], given: 328

Re: In countries where automobile insurance includes compensation for whip [#permalink]

Show Tags

08 May 2013, 09:45
6
KUDOS
Expert's post
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED

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
_________________

| '4 out of Top 5' Instructors on gmatclub | 70 point improvement guarantee | www.e-gmat.com

Kudos [?]: 8797 [6], given: 328

Chat Moderator
Joined: 22 Oct 2011
Posts: 32

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 16

Concentration: Finance, Operations
Re: In countries where automobile insurance includes compensation for whip [#permalink]

Show Tags

20 Mar 2014, 19:57
egmat wrote:

(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.

Chiranjeev

Hey Chiranjeev,

Can you clarify which portion of the paragraph is supposed to be the conclusion here? Is it "Nevertheless...cases are spurious"?

Thanks
_________________

Heads down, stay focused, ignore the noise

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 16

Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Aug 2013
Posts: 311

Kudos [?]: 79 [0], given: 23

Re: In countries where automobile insurance includes compensation for whip [#permalink]

Show Tags

13 Apr 2014, 15:39
What would you guys say the conclusion is here? I'm torn between two:

"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."

or.

"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."

Kudos [?]: 79 [0], given: 23

Manager
Joined: 30 May 2013
Posts: 186

Kudos [?]: 82 [0], given: 72

Location: India
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, General Management
GPA: 3.82
Re: In countries where automobile insurance includes compensation for whip [#permalink]

Show Tags

23 Jul 2014, 07:19
I could not understand how second bold face is the conclusion for the arguments

Is this not the conclusion "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."

Kudos [?]: 82 [0], given: 72

Director
Joined: 25 Apr 2012
Posts: 727

Kudos [?]: 832 [0], given: 724

Location: India
GPA: 3.21
Re: In countries where automobile insurance includes compensation for whip [#permalink]

Show Tags

24 Jul 2014, 20:20
rrsnathan wrote:
I could not understand how second bold face is the conclusion for the arguments

Is this not the conclusion "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."

Hello rrsnathan,

If you look at the arguement, you will notice that there are 2 conclusions discussed.

Conclusion of the observers: Because there is no objective test for whiplash, countries with higher reported cases of whiplash injuries have half the reported cases as spurious...

The author says this conclusion cannot be drawn because in countries where there is no compensation for whiplash injuries people have no incentive to report for such injuries, meaning the cases in these countries are under reported..With this reasoning, the argument criticizes the observes conclusion and then gives his/her own conclusion.

Hope it helps...
_________________

“If you can't fly then run, if you can't run then walk, if you can't walk then crawl, but whatever you do you have to keep moving forward.”

Kudos [?]: 832 [0], given: 724

Manager
Joined: 22 Feb 2009
Posts: 216

Kudos [?]: 170 [3], given: 148

Re: In countries where automobile insurance includes compensation for whip [#permalink]

Show Tags

31 Aug 2014, 03:34
3
KUDOS
Wes Z wrote:
OA is A guys. I put down D at first too. Source: GMATPREP

OA is D. Source: Office Guide

Here is the official 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.
_________________

.........................................................................
+1 Kudos please, if you like my post

Kudos [?]: 170 [3], given: 148

Director
Joined: 10 Mar 2013
Posts: 595

Kudos [?]: 432 [5], given: 200

Location: Germany
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 580 Q46 V24
GPA: 3.88
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: In countries where automobile insurance includes compensation for whip [#permalink]

Show Tags

06 Sep 2014, 02:23
5
KUDOS
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Hi, my choice was also D. But can some one explain it with a methodical approach. Which part is here a conclusion etc.
Below you can find my solution, please comment if there are some mistakes in the logic.

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.
--> is a fact

Presently, no objective test for whiplash exists, so it is true that spurious reports of whiplash injuries cannot be readily identified. --> Author's opinion

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. --> Conclusion

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.
--> Premise: supports the conclusion drawn by the author, which argue against deriving certain implications from the finding (Fact)
_________________

When you’re up, your friends know who you are. When you’re down, you know who your friends are.

800Score ONLY QUANT CAT1 51, CAT2 50, CAT3 50
GMAT PREP 670
MGMAT CAT 630
KAPLAN CAT 660

Kudos [?]: 432 [5], given: 200

Manager
Joined: 27 May 2014
Posts: 94

Kudos [?]: 104 [2], given: 43

Location: India
Concentration: Technology, General Management
Schools: HKUST '15, ISB '15
GMAT Date: 12-26-2014
GPA: 3
Re: In countries where automobile insurance includes compensation for whip [#permalink]

Show Tags

30 Sep 2014, 01:50
2
KUDOS
4
This post was
BOOKMARKED
BrainLab wrote:
Hi, my choice was also D. But can some one explain it with a methodical approach. Which part is here a conclusion etc.
Below you can find my solution, please comment if there are some mistakes in the logic.

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.
--> is a fact

Presently, no objective test for whiplash exists, so it is true that spurious reports of whiplash injuries cannot be readily identified. --> Author's opinion

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.[/b]

Hi,

Ron from ManhattanGmat explained the methodical approach taking this example only.You can check this .
Crux is we need to apply a THEREFORE test to find the conclusion.
I believe you have confusion in below two statements that one is conclusion and one is supporting the conclusion.
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.

Can be rephrased as: Commentators are wrong in reaching their conclusion that 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.

Can be rephrased as: People have little incentive to report whiplash injuries.

As per the THEREFORE test, Try applying THEREFORE in front of one statement at a time and see which makes sense.
So lets try :
Case 1 : Commentators are wrong in reaching their conclusion that half of the reported cases are spurious.Therefore, People have little incentive to report whiplash injuries.

Case 2 : People have little incentive to report whiplash injuries.Therefore, Commentators are wrong in reaching their conclusion that half of the reported cases are spurious.

Clearly Case 2 makes sense.So, Commentators are wrong is the ....is the conclusion.
Attachments

GMAT_CR_BOLDFACE_nomenclature.png [ 361.19 KiB | Viewed 30128 times ]

_________________

Success has been and continues to be defined as Getting up one more time than you have been knocked down.

Kudos [?]: 104 [2], given: 43

Current Student
Joined: 26 Aug 2014
Posts: 827

Kudos [?]: 163 [1], given: 98

Concentration: Marketing
GPA: 3.4
Re: In countries where automobile insurance includes compensation for whip [#permalink]

Show Tags

26 Oct 2014, 14:48
1
KUDOS
I think folks arguing about the answer are not looking at the question properly. In GMATPREP 1 different parts of this paragraph are highlighted and the A-E options are different (answer to GP1 is A - but it means something else)

Kudos [?]: 163 [1], given: 98

Senior Manager
Status: Math is psycho-logical
Joined: 07 Apr 2014
Posts: 441

Kudos [?]: 134 [1], given: 169

Location: Netherlands
GMAT Date: 02-11-2015
WE: Psychology and Counseling (Other)
Re: In countries where automobile insurance includes compensation for whip [#permalink]

Show Tags

03 Feb 2015, 03:02
1
KUDOS
3
This post was
BOOKMARKED
I also chose the wrong one and I now know why. A is the correct answer:

Commentators have argued, correctly, that since there is presently no objective test for whiplash, spurious reports of whiplash injuries cannot be readily identified.
The author agrees with this opinion of the commentators. This is where I focused and drew the concusion that the author and the commentators agree. So, I chose C.

However, just afterwards we read this:
These commentators are,however, wrong to draw further conclusion that in the countries with higher rates of reported whiplash injuries, half of the reported cases are spurious
In ther words, the author agrees with the first argument, but he doesn't think that this argument can be used to support the thesis that "in the countries with higher rates of reported whiplash injuries, half of the reported cases are spurious".

Then, he goes on explaining why commentators were wrong to make this additional conclusion, which is not important to answer the question.

So, the argument that is being refuted is that in the countries with higher rates of reported whiplash injuries, half of the reported cases are spurious. The author disagrees on that.

So, A is correct, because the first sentence was used by commentators to support the conclusion that "in the countries with higher rates of reported whiplash injuries, half of the reported cases are spurious", with which the author disagrees.

My mistake was that I only read the word "correctly" just before the first bolded sentence and stopped reading carefully after that, because I had already made up my mind that he would agree with the commentators, and thus with their argument and cocnlusion.

Kudos [?]: 134 [1], given: 169

Director
Joined: 10 Mar 2013
Posts: 595

Kudos [?]: 432 [0], given: 200

Location: Germany
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 580 Q46 V24
GPA: 3.88
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: In countries where automobile insurance includes compensation for whip [#permalink]

Show Tags

14 Apr 2015, 14:04
My conclusion
--> 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.

--> read carefully wich part have I marked as a conclusion - the same part Can be rephrased as: Commentators are wrong in reaching their conclusion that half of the reported cases are spurious. --> Conclusion
_________________

When you’re up, your friends know who you are. When you’re down, you know who your friends are.

800Score ONLY QUANT CAT1 51, CAT2 50, CAT3 50
GMAT PREP 670
MGMAT CAT 630
KAPLAN CAT 660

Kudos [?]: 432 [0], given: 200

Intern
Joined: 07 Oct 2014
Posts: 28

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 44

Re: In countries where automobile insurance includes compensation for whip [#permalink]

Show Tags

16 Jun 2015, 00:52
Wes Z wrote:
OA is A guys. I put down D at first too. Source: GMATPREP

No, OA is D. Source: Office Guide

Here is the official 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.

Hi,

I was just reviewing the GMAT Prep question bank and it has a similar question.

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. Some
commentators have argued, correctly, that since there is presently no objective test for
whiplash
, spurious reports of whiplash injuries cannot be readily identified. These
commentators are, however, wrong to draw the further conclusion 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 evidence that has been used t support a conclusion that the argument criticizes; the second is that conclusion.
(B) The first is evidence that has been used t support a conclusion that the argument criticizes; the second is the position that the argument defends.
(C) The first is a claim that has been used to support a conclusion that the argument accepts; the second is the position that the argument defends.
(D) The first is an intermediate conclusion that has been used to support a conclusion that the argument defends; the second is the position that the argument opposes.
(E) The first presents a claim that is disputed in the argument; the second is a conclusion that has been drawn on the basis of that claim.

[Reveal] Spoiler:

I was confused between the option C&D, but the correct answer mentioned is A. Please let me know if anyone can help me out with this.

Thanks.

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 44

Re: In countries where automobile insurance includes compensation for whip   [#permalink] 16 Jun 2015, 00:52

Go to page    1   2   3    Next  [ 47 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
16 Ten years ago , the country of Vorland adopted new automobile safety 7 02 Nov 2016, 05:37
12 In retail chains where store policy includes an allowance 11 24 Jun 2017, 23:16
107 Instead of blaming an automobile accident on driver error, insurance c 62 01 Jun 2017, 15:30
1 The automobile industry in Country A argues that, because 18 02 Aug 2014, 02:41
23 In countries where automobile insurance includes compensation for whip 2 30 Jul 2017, 10:16
Display posts from previous: Sort by