Dear Friends,
I was having problems in answering the following question.
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.
Presently, no objective test for whiplash exists, so it is true that spurious reports of whiplash
injuries cannot be readily identified. Nevertheless, these facts do not warrant a
conclusion that has been drawn by some commentators: 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. In the
argument given, 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 claim that has been used to support a position that the argument accepts; the
second is a position that the argument rejects.
C. The first is a finding whose accuracy is evaluated in the argument; the second is the judgment
reached by the argument concerning the accuracy of the finding.
D. The first is a finding whose implications are at issue in the argument; the second is the
judgment reached by the argument concerning one alleged implication.
E. The first is a finding, the explanation of which is at issue in the argument; the second is an
objection that has been raised against the explanation that the argument defends.
Please help.
OA after some discussions.
Regards
Deano.
I was having problems in answering the following question.
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.
Presently, no objective test for whiplash exists, so it is true that spurious reports of whiplash
injuries cannot be readily identified. Nevertheless, these facts do not warrant a
conclusion that has been drawn by some commentators: 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. In the
argument given, 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 claim that has been used to support a position that the argument accepts; the
second is a position that the argument rejects.
C. The first is a finding whose accuracy is evaluated in the argument; the second is the judgment
reached by the argument concerning the accuracy of the finding.
D. The first is a finding whose implications are at issue in the argument; the second is the
judgment reached by the argument concerning one alleged implication.
E. The first is a finding, the explanation of which is at issue in the argument; the second is an
objection that has been raised against the explanation that the argument defends.
Please help.
OA after some discussions.
Regards
Deano.
