In countries where automobile insurance includes compensation for whip

So I tried this strategy for bold face questions. Granted I have not been able to improve my time to solve it, but hence practice practice practice!

I apply the SC strategy in BFQ. Split each answer choice; first into part A and then part B. Then look vertically down the choices to determine the main words, like claim, evidence or conclusion. POE. Start with the BF sentence you can easily determine as a conclusion or not a conclusion.

Strategy:
1) Read the passage, determine the Main Conclusion of the passage.
In this example the last line is the Main conclusion: 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.

2) Define for yourself whether the BF sentences are premise or conclusion.
In this example the first BF is pretty obviously a premise and the latter; therefore, is an intermediate conclusion because we figured out the main conclusion.

3) Vertically scan the answer choices to gauge main words used to define the BF parts. Take before semi-colon as part A, after semi-colon, as part B.
The main words used in part A are claim, evidence, and intermediate conclusion. The main words used in part B are conclusion and position.

4) If you are confident of step 2, you can easily eliminate at least one answer choice.
In this case (D) is out because BF first sentence is not an intermediate conclusion. Now you are down to claim or evidence; can be either depending on the wording of the answer choices.

5) Assess by part A or part B.
In this case part B is easier. What stands out are answer choices with, "the second is the position that the argument defends." We know the answer choice is the argument is opposing. Answer (D) was eliminated, therefore we can eliminate choices (B) and (C).

This leaves A and E to choose from. Hence a 50% chance to at the very least guess the right answer.

6) Read the full answer choices, parts A and B together.
In this example, (E) part A is incorrect: The first presents a claim that is disputed in the argument. We know that the claim is not disputed, the argument agrees with the claim. Discard (E), only option left (A).

7) Make a decision.
We are left with A and in spite of the ungodly wordiness it befits the BF purpose.


I think it is much easier to distinguish between a conclusion and "not a conclusion", because for premises, the GMAT uses words that are hard to distinguish. For example, claim and evidence can be used interchangeably and is not a great basis to select an answer.

Hi GMATNinja

I rejected choices C, D, and E based on below.

- The first BF is not a claim it's a fact or an evidence. The continuation of the that BF "spurious reports of whiplash injuries cannot be readily identified" can in-fact be deemed a claim. Choice C and E are out.
- As you stated the first BF is not an intermediate conclusion, it's premise supporting the conclusion drawn by "these commentators'.

Is my reasoning to reject option C and E is correct ?


Thanks
Saurabh

this is a current fact and facts can be used as evidence .
none of the explanations are good enough .Let me try to explain .

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 premise}

Some commentators have argued, correctly, that since there is presently no objective test for whiplash {this is fact presented my commentators and the word correctly signals that author too admits this fact is true },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,among all cases reported half of the reported cases are spurious {here author's conclusion is that these commentators are wrong. author concludes that half of the cases are not fake . commentators conclusion - higher reports means half of the reports are fake }
: 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.{ this is reasoning supported by author to make his/her conclusion stronger . This too is kind of evidence (the situation in other countries) to support the authors own conclusion }

In the agreement given, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?

(A) The first is evidence (fact = evidence :when someone is basing there logic on those facts) that has been used to support a conclusion( this is referring to commentators conclusion) that the argument criticizes(yes author is criticising the conclusion made by commentators ); the second is that conclusion. (the second is conclusion of ONLY commentators because the bold face part does not include authors conclusion - These commentators are, however, wrong to draw .
CORRECT

(B) The first is evidence that has been used to support a conclusion that the argument criticizes; the second is the position that the argument defends.(as per our analysis second is not a position its conclusion of commentators )

(C) The first is a claim that has been used to support a conclusion that the argument accepts(argument isnt accepting anything ); the second is the position that the argument defends.

(D) The first is an intermediate conclusion(IC is only when author draws something . this is not authors view . Author accepted this fact this fact is known to both the parties ) that has been used to support a conclusion that the argument defends (argument is not defending the conclusion supported by this fact . argument is opposing ); the second is the position that the argument opposes.

(E) The first presents a claim that is disputed (both are accepting the claim .neither author nor commentators are disputing this part ) in the argument; the second is the conclusion that has been drawn on the basis of that claim

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 (Conclusion) 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. Claim by the author to show why the author doesn't agree that "....half of the reported cases are spurious".

In the agreement given, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?

(A) The first is evidence that has been used to support a conclusion that the argument criticizes; the second is that conclusion. - correct

(B) The first is evidence that has been used to support a conclusion that the argument criticizes; the second is the position that the argument defends. - The "position that the argument defends" means the main conclusion. It's not the main conclusion.

(C) The first is a claim that has been used to support a conclusion that the argument accepts (wrong - argent rejects that); the second is the position that the argument defends. - The "position that the argument defends" means the main conclusion. It's not the main conclusion.

(D) The first is an intermediate conclusion (No. It's just evidence) that has been used to support a conclusion that the argument defends (No. The argument rejects it); the second is the position that the argument opposes.

(E) The first presents a claim that is disputed in the argument (argument is not disputing it rather the argument disputes a conclusion drawn on the basis of this); the second is the conclusion that has been drawn on the basis of that claim.