the conclusion of the argument is "The commentators are however wrong to draw the conclusion that in the countries with higher rate of reported whiplash injuries, half of the reported case are spurious".

Therefore the author believes that the cases are not spurious.


Now let us see what does the first bolded statement say. "There is no objective way to test the whiplash" which serves as direct evidence to what the author believes. Option A says exactly the same.

2. Option B is partially correct . The first part is correct but the second part is not the position that argument defends it actually opposes the statement that the cases are spurious.

3. Option 3 just states the opposite to what the author believes in.

4. Option 4 is wrong bcos the first bolded statement is clearly a sub conclusion but it does not support the author's conclusion that the commentators are wrong in assuming that half of the cases are spurious.

5. Option 5 is wrong bcos the first bolded statement is clearly not what the author opposes. He believes it is true and he uses that statement to support his claim

D--is the right choice. If you examine the first phrase, it can serve as a conclusion. The second phrase is a conclusion as well. Putting both together, the first one is intermediate because it precedes the second conclusion.

The answer is A

This is a very easy BF question

The 2nd part is a conclusion ( it says that the commentators Conclude that ....)

What is the 1st part

It gives evidence

hence A

I would go with option A as the correct option