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.

The options

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

(A) The first is a claim that the argument disputes; the second is a conclusion that has been based on that claim.

(B) The first is a claim that has been used to support a conclusion that the argument accepts; the second is that conclusion.

(C) The first is evidence that has been used to support a conclusion for which the argument provides further evidence; the second is the main conclusion of the argument.

(D) The first is a finding whose implications are at issue in the argument; the second is a claim presented in order to argue against deriving certain implications from that finding.

(E) The first is a finding whose accuracy is evaluated in the argument; the second is evidence presented to establish that the finding is accurate.

The CORRECT ANSWER IS (D)

Explanation:

"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." - a fact.

It examine countries where whiplash injuries are taken care of in automobile insurance with countries where whiplash injuries are not taken care of under automobile insurance. The first group of countries have double the reports of whiplash injuries when viewed against the other group of countries.

"Presently; no objective test for whiplash exists," - A fact.

Spurious reports of whiplash injuries is not easy to be identified. - This is an idea of the author. He believes that spurious reports of whiplash injuries pose some difficulties in identification. Let's have a closer look to the words used here. Despite the fact that no indiviual has till now discussed about spurious reports of whiplash injuries, the author has specify this sentence in a form that reflects agreement. Let's hope the coming sentences bring more clarity.

"Nevertheless, these facts do not warrant the conclusion drawn by some commentators that in the countries with the higher rates of reported whiplash injuries, half of the reported cases are spurious." - keyword is 'Nevertheless'.

It shows a different point in direction. Now, go through the statement also with the preceding statement. So, basically, in the preceding statement in view, the author was agreeing to the commentators, who have been pointed to but disagrees on the idea that half of the situations of whiplash injuries are spurious (If you are considering why author sees 'half' the situations, consider the first statement once more, which highlights on double amount of whiplash injuries).

"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." - With this statement, the author unites his idea (that it does not reflects on half of the the cases been spurious) with the fact highlighted in the first statement (that there are double the reports of whiplash injuries in countries where it is taken care of under automobile insurance).

How does the author reconciles? He provides another explanation for the fact - he added that the high cases of whiplash injuries in countries where it is taken care of under automobile insurances is due to the reward and compensation they receive on reporting these injuries which is less in other countries without the reward and compensation on reporting these injuries.

So, let's review the option statements:

Option (A).❌

Bold Face (BF)1 it is not the case in the argument.

Option (B).❌

- Note, Bold Face (BF)1 is not a claim but a fact. Secondly, we can pinpoint from our review that BF1 has been employed to backup an explanation (of commentators) which is not the idea in the passage.

Option (C)❌

Just as seen in option B, the role of BF1 is not rightly stated and BF2 cannot serve as the centre conclusion of the argument. Therefore, the Second last statement being the basic conclusion of the argument is wrong.

Option (D).✔✔✔

With the implications being the conclusion stated by the commentators from BF1 as it is the concept of the argument. It is important to note that BF2 provides a another explanation for the finding to oppose the explanation given by commentators as the importance of both BF1 and BF2 are rightly stated.

Option (E).❌

The accuracy of BF1 is not determined in the argument