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 cannotbe readily identified. These commentators are,
however, wrong to draw the further conclusion that in the
countries with the higherrates of reported whiplash injuries, half of
the reported cases are spurious: clearly, in countires where
automobile insurance doesnot 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 to support a conclusion
that the arguemnt criticizes; the second is that conclusion
B: The first is evidence that has been used to support a conclusion
that the arguemnt 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 a
rgument 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.
There has been variants of this question and solutions; I'd
appreciate explanations/strategy for solving under 2mins.
Thanks.
automobile insurance includes compensation
This topic has expert replies
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 418
- Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 12:48 pm
- Thanked: 6 times
- Followed by:3 members
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 418
- Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 12:48 pm
- Thanked: 6 times
- Followed by:3 members
Timer
00:00
Your Answer
A
B
C
D
E
Global Stats
HSPA,
can you please explain how you arrive at your solution?
OA to follow after discussions.
can you please explain how you arrive at your solution?
OA to follow after discussions.
- HSPA
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1101
- Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 7:26 am
- Thanked: 47 times
- Followed by:13 members
- GMAT Score:640
Timer
00:00
Your Answer
A
B
C
D
E
Global Stats
On these bold face...my approach is bottoms up... I usually read the options first.. because they are the actual questions.
Opinion: Here all 5 questions are asking the conclusion.. so what is the actual conclusion??... matter after the word "clearly"
A) 'A' says the second is the conclusion but for me it looks like premise
B) Argument for the second is not defending but blasts it with words "wrong to draw"
C) Same as B
D) "I liked oppossing"
E) It says that the second is the conclusion
I dont know but Iliked oppossing ... so it is not I but my heart chose that option...
Opinion: Here all 5 questions are asking the conclusion.. so what is the actual conclusion??... matter after the word "clearly"
A) 'A' says the second is the conclusion but for me it looks like premise
B) Argument for the second is not defending but blasts it with words "wrong to draw"
C) Same as B
D) "I liked oppossing"
E) It says that the second is the conclusion
I dont know but Iliked oppossing ... so it is not I but my heart chose that option...
- Geva@EconomistGMAT
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 905
- Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 1:38 am
- Thanked: 378 times
- Followed by:123 members
- GMAT Score:760
Timer
00:00
Your Answer
A
B
C
D
E
Global Stats
There are no magic shortcuts for these. Read the argument, disregarding the boldface portions at first, just to get an idea what's going on. Then come up with your own definition of the specific roles of the boldface portions: are they premises/conclusions? If the argument has two sides, are they on the same side or opposing side? Do they support each other or oppose each other?
In this argument there are two sides:
1) some commentators say that half of the reported cases are spurious, based on the premise (1st boldface) that there is no objective test for whiplash.
2) the opposing side is the one the argument supports: the commentators are wrong in reaching the conclusion (2nd boldface) that the reports are spurious. It's not that people file false claims, but rather that people report less if no money is involved.
So the first is a piece of evidence that supports the conclusion in the second, but the argument opposes that conclusion.
With this definition, go to the answer choices and aggressively eliminate those who do not match your definition. If you've done a good job of analyzing the argument and the roles of the boldfaces, this is where you can save time: eliminate the answer choices that clearly do not match your definition, and whatever's left must be the right one.
In this argument there are two sides:
1) some commentators say that half of the reported cases are spurious, based on the premise (1st boldface) that there is no objective test for whiplash.
2) the opposing side is the one the argument supports: the commentators are wrong in reaching the conclusion (2nd boldface) that the reports are spurious. It's not that people file false claims, but rather that people report less if no money is involved.
So the first is a piece of evidence that supports the conclusion in the second, but the argument opposes that conclusion.
With this definition, go to the answer choices and aggressively eliminate those who do not match your definition. If you've done a good job of analyzing the argument and the roles of the boldfaces, this is where you can save time: eliminate the answer choices that clearly do not match your definition, and whatever's left must be the right one.
gmatdriller 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. Some commentators
have argued, correctly, that since there is presently no
objective test for whiplash, spurious reports of whiplash
injuries cannotbe readily identified. These commentators are,
however, wrong to draw the further conclusion that in the
countries with the higherrates of reported whiplash injuries, half of
the reported cases are spurious: clearly, in countires where
automobile insurance doesnot 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 to support a conclusion
that the argument criticizes; the second is that conclusion
This is correct answer it matches the definition of the role, while the others do not.
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
Right on the first one, wrong on the second one: the argument does not defend the conclusion in the 2nd boldface.
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
Wrong on both counts: the argument does not accept or defend the conclusion.
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.
the first is not an intermediate conclusion, but a hard core fact. Also, the conclusion it supports is not one the argument defends.
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.
The claim in the first is not disputed: you cannot argue with the fact that there is no objective test for whiplash.
There has been variants of this question and solutions; I'd
appreciate explanations/strategy for solving under 2mins.
Thanks.
Last edited by Geva@EconomistGMAT on Sun Mar 27, 2011 1:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
- turbo jet
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 154
- Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2009 10:02 pm
- Thanked: 5 times
- Followed by:3 members
Timer
00:00
Your Answer
A
B
C
D
E
Global Stats
IMO: A
Was tossing between A and D for a while. However on a closer look, the first portion of Answer D is incorrect ( 1st boldface is a premise/evidence and not a conclusion) although the second portion of Answer D is correct.
E gets eliminated automatically as it says that the Boldface 1 is a claim that is DISPUTED. It is not disputed. It is mentioned in the argument that is it CORRECT.
B: Second portion of Ans B is incorrect. The argument definitely DOES NOT DEFEND Boldface 2.
C: 1 portion of answer incorrect." support a conclusion that the argument ACCEPTS" The argument definitely does not support Boldface 2. Even second portion of answer is INCORRECT as boldface 2 is NOT what the argument defends.
Cheers
TJ
Was tossing between A and D for a while. However on a closer look, the first portion of Answer D is incorrect ( 1st boldface is a premise/evidence and not a conclusion) although the second portion of Answer D is correct.
E gets eliminated automatically as it says that the Boldface 1 is a claim that is DISPUTED. It is not disputed. It is mentioned in the argument that is it CORRECT.
B: Second portion of Ans B is incorrect. The argument definitely DOES NOT DEFEND Boldface 2.
C: 1 portion of answer incorrect." support a conclusion that the argument ACCEPTS" The argument definitely does not support Boldface 2. Even second portion of answer is INCORRECT as boldface 2 is NOT what the argument defends.
Cheers
TJ
Life is Tom; I am Jerry
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 418
- Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 12:48 pm
- Thanked: 6 times
- Followed by:3 members
Timer
00:00
Your Answer
A
B
C
D
E
Global Stats
Geva and TJ have given clear explanations.
OA, as supported by both contributors, is
A
OA, as supported by both contributors, is
A