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. 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 a conclusion that has been 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 position that the argument accepts; the second is a position that the argument rejects.

C. The first is a finding whose accuracy is evaluated in the argument; the second is the judgment reached by the argument concerning the accuracy of the finding.

D. The first is a finding whose implications are at issue in the argument; the second is the judgment reached by the argument concerning one alleged implication.

E. The first is a finding, the explanation of which is at issue in the argument; the second is an objection that has been raised against the explanation that the argument defends.

MartyMurray · 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. 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 a conclusion that has been 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.

A key move in getting this Boldface question correct is identifying the main conclusion of the argument, which is main opinion that follows from other statements in the passage. The main conclusion is stated by the second boldfaced portion along with what directly follows it:

these facts do not warrant a conclusion that has been drawn by some commentators: that in the countries with the higher rates of reported whiplash injuries, half of the reported cases are spurious

Having identified that conclusion, we can then consider how the other parts of the passage, including the first boldfaced portion are related to it.

Doing so, we see that the first boldfaced portion states a fact about frequency of reports of whiplash.

Then, the argument concedes that spurious reports cannot be readily identified.

After than, the main point of the argument is stated and then supported by the final sentences of the passage.

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 argument does not dispute the first boldfaced portion. It states it as fact.

Also, the second boldfaced portion is not "based on" the first. Rather it's based on the premises that follow it.

Eliminate.

B. The first is a claim that has been used to support a position that the argument accepts; the second is a position that the argument rejects.

The first part of this choice works, but the second part is completely wrong since the second is part of the argument's main conclusion.

Eliminate.

C. The first is a finding whose accuracy is evaluated in the argument; the second is the judgment reached by the argument concerning the accuracy of the finding.

This choice is completely wrong because the argument does not evaluate the accuracy of what's stated by the first boldfaced portion. It simply states it as fact.

Eliminate.

D. The first is a finding whose implications are at issue in the argument; the second is the judgment reached by the argument concerning one alleged implication.

The first part of this choice is correct because the first boldfaced portion is a finding, or fact, whose implications involving spurious reporting are the issue considered by the argument.

The second part is also correct because the second is the judgment, or conclusion, of the argument about the implication that half of the reported cases of whiplash are spurious.

Keep.

E. The first is a finding, the explanation of which is at issue in the argument; the second is an objection that has been raised against the explanation that the argument defends.

The first part of this choice could be considered correct because the argument does discuss different explanations for the difference in reporting.

However, the second portion of this choice is completely incorrect because, as discussed above, the second boldfaced portion is not counter to the position the argument "defends" but, rather, is that position.

Eliminate.

Correct answer:   D

Bunuel · Answer

Similar questions to practice: https://gmatclub.com/forum/in-countries ... 02322.html https://gmatclub.com/forum/in-countries ... 45259.html https://gmatclub.com/forum/in-countries ... 95529.html

guddo · 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. 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 a conclusion that has been 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?

The first boldface gives the factual pattern: whiplash reports are twice as frequent where insurance covers whiplash. The argument does not dispute this fact. Instead, it disputes one inference drawn from it, namely that half the reports in those countries are false.  So the first is a finding whose implication is being debated , and the second is the author’s judgment that this particular inference is  not warranted .

A. The first is a claim that the argument disputes; the second is a conclusion that has been based on that claim.

This is incorrect. The argument does not dispute the first boldface claim. It accepts the reporting difference but challenges what some commentators infer from it.

B. The first is a claim that has been used to support a position that the argument accepts; the second is a position that the argument rejects.

This is incorrect. The second boldface is not a position the argument rejects. It is the author’s own position.

C. The first is a finding whose accuracy is evaluated in the argument; the second is the judgment reached by the argument concerning the accuracy of the finding.

This is incorrect. The argument is not evaluating whether the first finding is accurate. It is evaluating what follows from that finding.

D. The first is a finding whose implications are at issue in the argument; the second is the judgment reached by the argument concerning one alleged implication.

This is correct. The first finding is used by some commentators to suggest that half the reported cases are spurious. The second boldface states the author’s judgment that this implication does not follow.

E. The first is a finding, the explanation of which is at issue in the argument; the second is an objection that has been raised against the explanation that the argument defends.

This is incorrect. The second boldface is not an objection raised against the author’s explanation. It is the author’s own rejection of the commentators’ conclusion.

Answer: (D)

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