whiplash

[lukaswelker]

Hey Guys, here goes the question.

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. Some commentators have argued, correctly, that since there is presently no objective test for whiplash, spurious reports of whiplash injuries cannot be readily identified. These commentators are, however, wrong to dram the further conclusion that in the countries with the higher rates of reported whiplash injuries, half of the reported cases are spurious: clearly, 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.

In the argument given, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?

"¢The first is evidence that has been used to support a conclusions that the argument criticizes; the second is that conclusion.
"¢The first is evidence that has been used to support a conclusions that the argument criticizes; the second is the position that the argument defends.
"¢The first is a claim that has been used to support a conclusions that the argument accepts; the second is the position that the argument defends.
"¢The first is an intermediate conclusion that has been used to support a conclusions that the argument defends; the second is the position that the argument defends.
"¢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.

I can't get my head around it. Any suggestions?
Cheers
Lukas

[ceilidh.erickson]

This is a somewhat common argument structure for boldface questions. We have a phenomenon presented, and two explanations offered: the one the author believes, and the opposite.

Situation:
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):
Since 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):
Because: 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

boldface 1 = a piece of evidence that supports explanation 1, which the author does NOT believe
boldface 2 = explanation 1, which the author does NOT believe

A. The first is evidence that has been used to support a conclusions that the argument criticizes --> true
the second is that conclusion --> true, it is the conclusion that the argument criticizes

B. The first is evidence that has been used to support a conclusions that the argument criticizes --> true
the second is the position that the argument defends. --> false. The second boldface is within the larger sentence that outlines the author's position, but the boldface itself is the opposite position

C. The first is a claim that has been used to support a conclusions that the argument accepts --> false. It's used to support the opposite explanation.
the second is the position that the argument defends. --> false. It's the claim that the argument disputes.

D. The first is an intermediate conclusion that has been used to support a conclusions that the argument defends --> false. It's not an intermediate conclusion, it's a fact.
the second is the position that the argument defends. --> false. It's the claim that the argument disputes.

E. The first presents a claim that is disputed in the argument --> false. The author does not dispute the truth of this fact.
the second is a conclusion that has been drawn on the basis of that claim. --> true (except that it wasn't a claim, it was a fact).

The answer is A.


By the way, several different versions of this question exist, which have different portions in bold. See here: https://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/bf-kaplan-t670.html

[ceilidh.erickson]

For a question with a similar structure, see: https://www.beatthegmat.com/scientists-g ... tml#538772