In countries where automobile insurance includes compensation for whip

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 a finding whose accuracy is evaluated in the argument; the second is an intermediate conclusion drawn to support the judgment reached by the argument on the accuracy of that finding.

(B) The first is a finding whose accuracy is evaluated in the argument; the second is evidence that has been used to challenge the accuracy of that finding.

(C) The first is a finding whose implications are at issue in the argument; the second is an intermediate conclusion that has been used to support a conclusion that the argument criticizes.

(D) The first is a claim that the argument disputes; the second is a narrower claim that the argument accepts.

(E) The first is a claim that has been used to support a conclusion that the argument accepts; the second is that conclusion.

HaileyCusimano · Accepted Answer

Hi  prakhar992  - I'd be happy to!

So, with boldface reasoning questions, I like to break down and utilize process of elimination on three major points. When analyzing the boldface portions, try to identify whether the portions in bold

-Represent fact (evidence) or opinion (conclusion)

-Align with one another or contrast one another

-Align with the author's argument or contrast the author's argument

While you might need to take a step further in analysis occasionally, I've found that understanding the roles of the boldface portion in these three respects consistently allows you to use process of elimination to identify the correct answer without allowing you to get too caught up in lengthy, low-value-add analysis. I talk more about this strategy in  this video  in case you'd like to check it out!

So, in this case - we start by reading through the entire stimulus to understand the role of each bold portion, and then we're ready to analyze! First off,  fact (evidence) vs. opinion (conclusion).

The first bold portion is definitely a fact! The frequency of reports is a data point, not anyone's opinion - so we can eliminate  (D)  and  (E)  , since both cite the first as a "claim." Finding, however, fits the description for fact/evidence we identified.

The second bold portion on the other hand, is the result of what some commentators have argued, indicated by the language, " Some commentators have argued , correctly, that  since  there is presently no objective test for whiplash, ..." directly before the bold portion. So,  (B)  is out too - since it incorrectly describes the second bold portion as "evidence."

From here, we're already down to (A) and (C), and can use one of our other process of elimination points!

Now, between  align with one another or contrast one another  and  align with the author's argument or contrast the author's argument , I'm going to choose to focus on the latter, since this seems to be where the remaining answer choices differ. The second boldface portion is cited as an intermediate conclusion in both cases, but does it support a judgement reached by the argument (the author) or does it support a conclusion the author criticizes?

If we read past the bold portion (as we should!) we can see that the author believes that "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" and instead concludes that "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."

So, the second boldface portion supports a conclusion that works in contrast to the author's argument, and this perfectly aligns with  (C)  "the second is an intermediate conclusion that has been used to support a conclusion that the argument criticizes." (and also happens to give us great support for eliminating  (A) !)

So, by recognizing that the first bold portion is a fact/piece of evidence and the second is an opinion or conclusion of some sort and realizing that the second portion supports a further conclusion that contrasts that of the author, we can use POE to eliminate all wrong answers and correctly conclude  (C) .

I hope this helps!

Best,

Hailey

udaypratapsingh99 · Answer

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

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

Now, let’s look at options A, C & E

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

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

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

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

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

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

Key takeaways:

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

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

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

jain3120 · Answer

In the first two lines shares a fact with us - Reports of having suffered such injuries are twice as frequent as they are in countries where whiplash is not covered

In the second part of the sentence he tries to dispute the most common conclusion drawn from the above two sentences, it says since there is no evidence to test whiplash, the higher number of claims must be fraudulent; at first glance it seems likely that most people would believe that people are fradulently claiming injuries

The author then tries to negate this common conclusion, he says people often have little incentive to report whiplash injuries that they actually have suffered.

To summarise, the author first states a claim, then he tells us what is most common implication from the facts, then he concludes by arguiing the common implication.

Let's look at the options
A - The arguement is not disputing the claim. WRONG

B - The passage never implies that the findings are incorrect, it says the conclusion drawn from the findings are incorrect.

C - Argument doesn't provide further evidence. WRONG

D -The passage never implies that the findings are incorrect, it says the conclusion drawn from the findings are incorrect.

E - The arguement doesn't accept the conclusion

prakhar992 · Answer

Hello  VeritasPrepHailey , 
Can you please, if possible, explain this question?

thekingslay · Answer

But how the implications are reviewed of the first bold part? I do not get this.

KarishmaB · Answer

Responding to a pm: Context: 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' Premise: there is presently no objective test for whiplash Some commentators' Intermediate Conclusion: spurious reports of whiplash injuries cannot be readily identified . Some commentators further conclusion (their main conclusion): In the countries with the higher rates of reported whiplash injuries, half of the reported cases are spurious (This is mentioned indirectly by the author but it is clearly mentioned. It is the opposing view) Author's Premise: 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. Author's Conclusion: It is not true that in the countries with the higher rates of reported whiplash injuries, half of the reported cases are spurious (This is the author's view) (A) The first is a finding whose accuracy is evaluated in the argument; the second is an intermediate conclusion drawn to support the judgment reached by the argument on the accuracy of that finding. The first is a finding but its accuracy is not being evaluated. The author does not question whether the gives data is accurate. He talks about "why" the data is what it is - are they spurious reports or is it that people don't report even when they face whiplash injuries because of lacking incentive. (B) The first is a finding whose accuracy is evaluated in the argument; the second is evidence that has been used to challenge the accuracy of that finding. Again, the accuracy of the first statement is not getting evaluated. (C) The first is a finding whose implications are at issue in the argument; the second is an intermediate conclusion that has been used to support a conclusion that the argument criticizes. Correct. The implications of the finding are being discussed. What does the data imply? Does it imply that in countries with whiplash insurance people file serious claims or that in countries without whiplash insurance people do not report whiplash injuries because there is no purpose to it. The second is an intermediate conclusion that has been used to support a conclusion that the argument (author) criticizes. The second supports the opposing viewpoint. (D) The first is a claim that the argument disputes; the second is a narrower claim that the argument accepts. The argument does not dispute what has been said in first BF. (E) The first is a claim that has been used to support a conclusion that the argument accepts; the second is that conclusion. Even if we accept that the first is a claim that has been used to support a conclusion that the argument accepts (even though it kind of sets the context which will be discussed), the second is certainly not the conclusion that the argument accepts. The second is an intermediate conclusion that has been used to support a conclusion that the argument opposes. Answer (C) Here is a discussion on Boldface Questions: https://youtu.be/U57vXdqujkY

A_Nishith · Answer

Some commentators' Premise:
there is presently no objective test for whiplash

Some commentators' Intermediate Conclusion:
spurious reports of whiplash injuries cannot be readily identified.

Some commentators further conclusion (their main conclusion):
In the countries with the higher rates of reported whiplash injuries, half of the reported cases are spurious
(This is mentioned indirectly by the author but it is clearly mentioned. It is the opposing view)

Author's Premise:
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.

Author's Conclusion:
It is not true that in the countries with the higher rates of reported whiplash injuries, half of the reported cases are spurious
(This is the author's view)

(A) The first is a finding whose accuracy is evaluated in the argument; the second is an intermediate conclusion drawn to support the judgment reached by the argument on the accuracy of that finding.

The first is a finding but its accuracy is not being evaluated. The author does not question whether the gives data is accurate. He talks about "why" the data is what it is - are they spurious reports or is it that people don't report even when they face whiplash injuries because of lacking incentive.

(B) The first is a finding whose accuracy is evaluated in the argument; the second is evidence that has been used to challenge the accuracy of that finding.

Again, the accuracy of the first statement is not getting evaluated.

(C) The first is a finding whose implications are at issue in the argument; the second is an intermediate conclusion that has been used to support a conclusion that the argument criticizes.

Correct. The implications of the finding are being discussed. What does the data imply? Does it imply that in countries with whiplash insurance people file serious claims or that in countries without whiplash insurance people do not report whiplash injuries because there is no purpose to it.
The second is an intermediate conclusion that has been used to support a conclusion that the argument (author) criticizes. The second supports the opposing viewpoint.

(D) The first is a claim that the argument disputes; the second is a narrower claim that the argument accepts.

The argument does not dispute what has been said in first BF.

(E) The first is a claim that has been used to support a conclusion that the argument accepts; the second is that conclusion.

Even if we accept that the first is a claim that has been used to support a conclusion that the argument accepts (even though it kind of sets the context which will be discussed), the second is certainly not the conclusion that the argument accepts. The second is an intermediate conclusion that has been used to support a conclusion that the argument opposes.

Answer (C)

In countries where automobile insurance includes compensation for whip

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

In countries where automobile insurance includes compensation for whip

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards