Critical Reasoning

gmatdriller 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 cannotbe readily identified. These commentators are,
however, wrong to draw the further conclusion that in the
countries with the higherrates of reported whiplash injuries, half of
the reported cases are spurious: clearly, in countires where
automobile insurance doesnot 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 evidence that has been used to support a conclusion
that the argument criticizes; the second is that conclusion
This is correct answer it matches the definition of the role, while the others do not.
B: The first is evidence that has been used to support a conclusion
that the argument criticizes; the second is the position that the
argument defends
Right on the first one, wrong on the second one: the argument does not defend the conclusion in the 2nd boldface.
C: The first is a claim that has been used to support a conclusion
that the argument accepts; the second is the position that the argument defends
Wrong on both counts: the argument does not accept or defend the conclusion.
D: The first is an intermediate conclusion that has been used to
support a conclusion that the argument defends; the second is
the position that the argument opposes.
the first is not an intermediate conclusion, but a hard core fact. Also, the conclusion it supports is not one the argument defends.
E: The first presents a claim that is disputed in the argument; the
second is a conclusion that has been drawn on the basis of that
claim.
The claim in the first is not disputed: you cannot argue with the fact that there is no objective test for whiplash.

There has been variants of this question and solutions; I'd
appreciate explanations/strategy for solving under 2mins.

Thanks.