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. 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 draw 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 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 finding whose accuracy is evaluated in the argument; the second is an
intermediate conclusion drawn to support the judgment reached by the argument on the
accuracy of that finding.
B. The first is a finding whose accuracy is evaluated in the argument; the second is evidence that
has been used to challenge the accuracy of that finding.
C. The first is a finding whose implications are at issue in the argument; the second is an
intermediate conclusion that has been used to support a conclusion that the argument
criticizes.
D. The first is a claim that the argument disputes; the second is a narrower claim that the
argument accepts.
E. The first is a claim that has been used to support a conclusion that the argument accepts; the
second is that conclusion.
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. 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 draw 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 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 finding whose accuracy is evaluated in the argument; the second is an
intermediate conclusion drawn to support the judgment reached by the argument on the
accuracy of that finding.
B. The first is a finding whose accuracy is evaluated in the argument; the second is evidence that
has been used to challenge the accuracy of that finding.
C. The first is a finding whose implications are at issue in the argument; the second is an
intermediate conclusion that has been used to support a conclusion that the argument
criticizes.
D. The first is a claim that the argument disputes; the second is a narrower claim that the
argument accepts.
E. The first is a claim that has been used to support a conclusion that the argument accepts; the
second is that conclusion.
Please help.
OA after some discussions.
Regards
Deano.
