Whiplash

IMO D.

The first boldface tells us about the relation b/w cases of whiplash in and the disinterest of
insurance companies to compensate for those kind of injuries. The argument also states that whiplash is difficult to verify or to test for its cause.

Furthermore, the second boldface of the argument states that half the number of whiplash injuries in those countries are fake. In that way it opposes the conclusion of the argument that " people can't expect to be compensated even if their injuries are original" This conclusion is clearly supported by the first bolface stating that " there are no tests to prove either ways"

So, boldface 1 is intermediate conclusion that supports the final conclusion that argument defends. 2nd boldface is what the argument opposes.

imo e

THE INDICATOR ...SINCE SHOWS THAT THE FIRST ONE IS AN EVIDENCE OR PREMISES ....

THE SECOND ONE CONTAINS A CONCLUSION INDICATOR......

xcusemeplz2009 wrote:imo e

THE INDICATOR ...SINCE SHOWS THAT THE FIRST ONE IS AN EVIDENCE OR PREMISES ....

THE SECOND ONE CONTAINS A CONCLUSION INDICATOR......

I guess the first bold face in the argument is not DISUPTED. can u re-check?

raghavakumar85 wrote:

xcusemeplz2009 wrote:imo e

THE INDICATOR ...SINCE SHOWS THAT THE FIRST ONE IS AN EVIDENCE OR PREMISES ....

THE SECOND ONE CONTAINS A CONCLUSION INDICATOR......

I guess the first bold face in the argument is not DISUPTED. can u re-check?

I GUESS COMMENTATORS ARE SAYING THAT THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE TEST TO IDENTIFY THE WHIPLASH AND THE AUTHOR IS THEN RAISING A DOUBT BY SAYING THAT HOW COME 50 % OF CLAIMS ARE IDENTIFIED AS SPURIOUS ....IT LUKS LIKE A DISPUTE ONLY.....

LETS SEE WAT OA SAYS

AHHH...Deadly mistake.... I realize "spurious reports of whiplash injuries cannot be readily identified" is the support to the conclusion. Not the Boldface 1

Having said that, I observed CORRECTLY, THAT SINCE before the first boldface and WRONG TO DRAW CONCLUSION before the second boldface.

Yes, excusemeplz2009 you are right!! D is wrong. I misread

Folks,

The answer is A.

The second sentence reads: Some commentators have argued, correctly, that since THERE IS PRESENTLY NO OBJECTIVE TEST FOR WHIPLASH, spurious reports of whiplash cannot be readily identified.

The "since" tells us that there being no test for whiplash is the commentators' evidence of some kind.

The "correctly" tells us the author does not dispute this evidence.

In the next sentence, however, we get the important contrast keyword "however" (no pun, promise!).
Contrast keywords often usher in the author's point of view in boldface questions. The author is chiming in saying: yeah fine, they are right about no test for whiplash but they are wrong to USE that fact to support this idea of theirs (ie, their conclusion that people are faking whiplash in the countries whose insurance schemes compensate whiplash victims.)

The author uses the phrase "further conclusion" in the third sentence. This tells us that the commentators are using the argument in the first bold statement--the one the author does agree with--to support an argument that the author does not agree with (they "are, however, wrong").

The first clause of choice A correctly identifies the first bold statment's function as the "commnators'" evidence. The second clause of choice A properly picks up on the huge "however" keyword, telling us that the author is out to dispute these commentators' main (further) conclusion.

Testluv wrote:Folks,

The answer is A.

The second sentence reads: Some commentators have argued, correctly, that since THERE IS PRESENTLY NO OBJECTIVE TEST FOR WHIPLASH, spurious reports of whiplash cannot be readily identified.

The "since" tells us that there being no test for whiplash is the commentators' evidence of some kind.

The "correctly" tells us the author does not dispute this evidence.

In the next sentence, however, we get the important contrast keyword "however" (no pun, promise!).
Contrast keywords often usher in the author's point of view in boldface questions. The author is chiming in saying: yeah fine, they are right about no test for whiplash but they are wrong to USE that fact to support this idea of theirs (ie, their conclusion that people are faking whiplash in the countries whose insurance schemes compensate whiplash victims.)

The author uses the phrase "further conclusion" in the third sentence. This tells us that the commentators are using the argument in the first bold statement--the one the author does agree with--to support an argument that the author does not agree with (they "are, however, wrong").

The first clause of choice A correctly identifies the first bold statment's function as the "commnators'" evidence. The second clause of choice A properly picks up on the huge "however" keyword, telling us that the author is out to dispute these commentators' main (further) conclusion.

very well explained. I identified those signposts CORRECTLY , HOWEVER and WRONGLY CONCLUDING.. in the argument. But was unable to select the right choice.

Any tips particularily for Boldfaces??

Testluv wrote:Folks,

The answer is A.

The second sentence reads: Some commentators have argued, correctly, that since THERE IS PRESENTLY NO OBJECTIVE TEST FOR WHIPLASH, spurious reports of whiplash cannot be readily identified.

The "since" tells us that there being no test for whiplash is the commentators' evidence of some kind.

The "correctly" tells us the author does not dispute this evidence.

In the next sentence, however, we get the important contrast keyword "however" (no pun, promise!).
Contrast keywords often usher in the author's point of view in boldface questions. The author is chiming in saying: yeah fine, they are right about no test for whiplash but they are wrong to USE that fact to support this idea of theirs (ie, their conclusion that people are faking whiplash in the countries whose insurance schemes compensate whiplash victims.)

The author uses the phrase "further conclusion" in the third sentence. This tells us that the commentators are using the argument in the first bold statement--the one the author does agree with--to support an argument that the author does not agree with (they "are, however, wrong").

The first clause of choice A correctly identifies the first bold statment's function as the "commnators'" evidence. The second clause of choice A properly picks up on the huge "however" keyword, telling us that the author is out to dispute these commentators' main (further) conclusion.

hello testluv
how to ensure whether a sentence is a claim or evidence...is there any key word to ensure that the given sentence is a claim and not an evidence...

xcusemeplz2009 wrote:

Testluv wrote:Folks,

The answer is A.

The second sentence reads: Some commentators have argued, correctly, that since THERE IS PRESENTLY NO OBJECTIVE TEST FOR WHIPLASH, spurious reports of whiplash cannot be readily identified.

The "since" tells us that there being no test for whiplash is the commentators' evidence of some kind.

The "correctly" tells us the author does not dispute this evidence.

In the next sentence, however, we get the important contrast keyword "however" (no pun, promise!).
Contrast keywords often usher in the author's point of view in boldface questions. The author is chiming in saying: yeah fine, they are right about no test for whiplash but they are wrong to USE that fact to support this idea of theirs (ie, their conclusion that people are faking whiplash in the countries whose insurance schemes compensate whiplash victims.)

The author uses the phrase "further conclusion" in the third sentence. This tells us that the commentators are using the argument in the first bold statement--the one the author does agree with--to support an argument that the author does not agree with (they "are, however, wrong").

The first clause of choice A correctly identifies the first bold statment's function as the "commnators'" evidence. The second clause of choice A properly picks up on the huge "however" keyword, telling us that the author is out to dispute these commentators' main (further) conclusion.

hello testluv
how to ensure whether a sentence is a claim or evidence...is there any key word to ensure that the given sentence is a claim and not an evidence...

Evidence keywords:
Because
Since
After all
As
For

Conclusion keywords:
Therefore
Thus
Hence
So
Consequently
Clearly
Accordingly

Note: the list above, while thorough, is not exhaustive. For example, if the author is facing of against another arguer (argument-counterargument), then contrast keywords will often signal the author's view. That's what happened here: "however" assisted us in delineating the author's perspective.

How to understand/ interpret the choices in boldfaces that have wordings CONSIDERATION, SITUATION, MAIN POSITION, BACKGROUND, MAINPOINT etc., ?

No surprise, I get confused trying to differentiate each one of them in the bold faces.

raghavakumar85 wrote:How to understand/ interpret the choices in boldfaces that have wordings CONSIDERATION, SITUATION, MAIN POSITION, BACKGROUND, MAINPOINT etc., ?

No surprise, I get confused trying to differentiate each one of them in the bold faces.

Well, you need to understand the gist of the argument and the connections between the sentences. It is a good idea to get that down BEFORE going to the choices.

If a choice says "consideration", then just ask: "was this something the author considered to proceed to the conclusion or could his conclusion been just as persuasively presented without it?"

I'd say A but I'm afraid more because of my intuition than any logic.