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
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
