When an auto insurance policy compensates the owners of stolen or burglarized cars for not only any physical damage to their vehicles, but also the loss of property that had been present within, victims claim nearly three times the material losses that they do when an insurer compensates only for physical damage. Because the evidence in these cases has, by definition, been stolen, there are few objective means to determine whether the victim actually incurred the material losses claimed. But these facts do not establish the conclusion most frequently drawn: that these claimed losses are generally fraudulent. Clearly,
when an insurance policy does not provide compensation for items stolen from a car, people have little incentive to report such a loss.In the argument above, 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.