The goal in any BOLDFACE question is to deconstruct the argument, and determine the role of each statement:

- author's conclusion / position
- support for the author
- the counterpoint / what others believe
- support for the counterpoint
- neutral / background information

This whiplash argument is a common argument structure for boldface questions: we have a phenomenon presented, and two explanations offered: the one the author believes, and the opposite.

Phenomenon:
In countries where automobile insurances 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.

Explanation 1 (not the author's):
Given: there is presently no objective test for whiplash, spurious reports of whiplash injuries cannot be readily identified,
Conclusion: half of the reported cases are spurious

Explanation 2 (the author's):
Hypothesis: in countries where automobile insurances does not include compensation for whiplash, people often have little incentive to report whiplash injuries that they actually have suffered,
Conclusion: These commentators are wrong to draw the further conclusion that half of the reported cases are spurious .

Boldface 1 = the phenomenon that both explanations are seeking to explain.
Boldface 2 = the hypothesis given by the author to explain the phenomenon, supporting the larger conclusion that the other explanation is wrong.

Tip for boldface questions: When looking at answer choices, just look at the 1st part first, and eliminate answers. Then look at the 2nd part of the answers that remain.

For the 1st part of each answer choice, we want: the phenomenon that both explanations are seeking to explain (fact).

A) The first is a claim that the argument disputes... --> no. It's not a claim, it's a fact.
B) The first is a claim that has been used to support a conclusion that the argument accepts... --> no. It's not a claim, it's a fact.
C) The first is evidence that has been used to support a conclusion for which the argument provides further evidence... --> maybe?. You *could* argue that this phenomenon is evidence for other people's viewpoint... it's not a great answer, but we'll leave it for now.
D) The first is a finding whose implications are at issue in the argument... --> yes. That means a fact that we're not sure how to interpret.
E) The first is a finding whose accuracy is evaluated in the argument... --> no. We're not disputing the accuracy of differences in whiplash compensation. We're disputing *why* that's the case.

Eliminate A, B, and E. Now look at the 2nd part of C and D. We're looking for: the hypothesis given by the author to explain the phenomenon, supporting the larger conclusion that the other explanation is wrong.

C) ... the second is the main conclusion of the argument. --> no. It's supporting a larger conclusion, so it's not the main conclusion. (Plus the 1st part was iffy).
D) ... the second is a claim presented in order to argue against deriving certain implications from that finding. --> yes. Yes! This statement is supporting the broader idea "don't believe what those other people think."

The answer is D.