Critical Reasoning

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 particular argument presents a common structure for arguments in boldface questions: we have a phenomenon presented, and two explanations offered - the one that the author believes, and the one that the author opposes.

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.

Now, we label the boldface portions according to this breakdown:

boldface 1: "there is presently no objective test for whiplash"
= a piece of evidence (a fact) that supports explanation 1, which the author does NOT believe

boldface 2: "in the countries with the higher rates of reported whiplash injuries, half of the reported cases are spurious"
= explanation 1, which the author does NOT believe

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: a piece of evidence (a fact) that supports explanation 1, which the author does NOT believe

(A) The first is evidence that has been used to support a conclusion that the argument criticizes...
- yes, this could work

(B) The first is evidence that has been used to support a conclusion that the argument criticizes...
- same as A. Keep it.

(C) The first is a claim that has been used to support a conclusion that the argument accepts...
- no, that would mean support for the author's side. Eliminate C.

(D) The first is an intermediate conclusion that has been used to support a conclusion that the argument defends...
- this isn't a conclusion; it's a fact. Eliminate D.

(E) The first presents a claim that is disputed in the argument...
- it's not a claim; it's a fact. Eliminate E.



We've eliminated C, D, and E. So we only have to look at the 2nd parts of A and B. We're looking for: explanation 1, which the author does NOT believe

(A) ...the second is that conclusion.
- yes, that fits. "That" conclusion = the conclusion that the argument criticizes.

(B) ...the second is the position that the argument defends.
- no, the 2nd is the opposing explanation, not the author's explanation.

The answer is A.

By the way, it's interesting to note that the GMAT will sometimes use the same argument but ask different questions about it. Here is the same argument from the OG, but with different portions bolded: https://www.beatthegmat.com/gmat-offici ... tml#818265

If you want more on BOLDFACE questions in general, see:
https://www.beatthegmat.com/og-2018-cr- ... tml#796614
https://www.beatthegmat.com/gmat-offici ... tml#818059
https://www.beatthegmat.com/gmat-offici ... tml#818656
https://www.beatthegmat.com/although-th ... tml#821876
https://www.beatthegmat.com/scientists- ... tml#538772
https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/blog ... -question/