Critical Reasoning

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'd say E.

The argument is that the lack of insurance takes away an incentive to report, therefore leading to fewer cases reported. The first bold section presents findings that this argument aims to explain.

The second is an objection raised against the argument (it says that the differences in reporting are not due to a lack of incentive to report genuine injuries, but simply an absence of spurious claims).

D. The author is not disputing a finding, it is a "finding". He uses the same finding to point out that it could lead to multiple conclusions and hence the conclusion reached by commentators is not a definitive one and there could be other reasons accounting for it. So it does not "Warrant" the conclusion reached by the commentators. The only answer choice that keeps this in mind is D

The first is a finding (correct) whose implications are at issue in the argument; the second is the
judgment reached by the argument concerning one alleged implication (yes the author's conclusion is that the findings could mean this but they don't warrant this).

E states that " against the explanation that the argument defends" the author is not defending the explanation.

Whats the original answer?

OA is option D