Critical Reasoning

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.

Is "countries with the higher rates of reported whiplash injuries, half of the reported cases are spurious: conclusion
& "countries where automobile insurance does not include compensation for whiplash, people often have little incentive to report whiplash injuries that they actually have suffered": Main conclusion of the passage?

ash4gmat 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 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.

Is "countries with the higher rates of reported whiplash injuries, half of the reported cases are spurious: conclusion
& "countries where automobile insurance does not include compensation for whiplash, people often have little incentive to report whiplash injuries that they actually have suffered": Main conclusion of the passage?

In questions like this it's important to differentiate between what the author of the argument believes and what an entity within the argument believes. Here, some commentators have concluded that "countries with the higher rates of reported whiplash injuries, half of the reported cases are spurious." We want to pay close attention to how this opinion is framed to determine if the author agrees. Note that the previous clause is "These commentators are, however, wrong." So the author has concluded that the commentators' claim that half of the whiplash claims are spurious is incorrect. This appears to be the main conclusion of the argument. The final line - "countries where automobile insurance does not include compensation for whiplash, people often have little incentive to report whiplash injuries that they actually have suffered" - is a logical explanation to account for why the author disagrees with the commentators.