gwd-30-26 未解答

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?

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. The first is a claim that the argument disputes; the second is a narrower claim that the argument accepts.
5. The first is a claim that has been used to support a conclusion that the argument accepts; the second is that conclusion.  

答案c我觉得a。 文中说了Some commentators have argued, correctly,不会是c了

原文意思是:在一个国家,因为包括赔偿w的事故比不包括赔偿w的事故多,还以为没有客观的方法检验w,虚假的w报告不能被辨认,所以那些评论者错误的得出结论包括赔偿w的国家中,有一半的关于w的报告是假的,而不包括赔偿w的国家中人们没有动机去报告他们遭受的那些w

第2个黑体字是there is no objective test for whiplash的结论,也是作者用来批评commentator的

第一个黑体字是来暗示那些commentator说的话的

其中a中说的衡量结论的正确与否,其实原文好象是为了批评那些commentator的,而commentator 的结论就是根据第一个黑体字来的,所以不对

不知道理解的对不对,请高手指点

用排除法很快就做出来了<1分钟

1 the first是一个事实不是一个claim，排除DE

2the first是一个事实，提干中推理的是这个事实的各种推论，而不是这个事实的准确性，排除AB

这个题出得真弱智啊，看选项前半段就搞定了

还要需要进一步的解释吗？

稍微说详细点点：

提干推理结构：

发现了这样一个事实：automobile insurance includes compensation for whiplash injuries 的国家，报告的因W受伤的比保险中不包括这个的国家多一倍（1st）

第一步推理（正确）：

前提：因为W受伤的报告容易伪造，

中间结论：所以保险中包含W的国家的高报告数量可能是多报了（2ed）

第二步推理（错误）：

前提：（中间结论）保险中包含W的国家的高报告数量可能多报了

最终结论：

高报告数量的一半都是假的

这个推理的隐含假设：

低报告数量的国家报道的数量是准确的

这个隐含假设是错误的：

因为如果保险不包括，那么没有动力去报告这个，低报告数量的国家的数量可能少报了

牛的，思路很清晰。

这个题目boldface部分不去说他了，关键是我觉得整个argument的逻辑过程好晦涩。

说说我得理解：

保险包含颈椎病的国家，含有颈椎受伤的车祸保险报告，比那些保险不cover此病的国家的数字要高2倍。一些评论员又指出，因为颈椎病很难鉴定，所以假冒颈椎病报告很难被识破。但是，这些评论员据此推理出来的结论是错的，这个结论说，在有颈椎医保的国家，半数此类含有颈椎受伤的车祸保险报告是假的。因为，在无颈椎保险的国家，人们就算真的颈椎受伤也不去报告。

全文给出2个前提：

1，有颈椎医保国家比没有颈椎医保国家，颈椎报告多1倍。

2，颈椎受伤报告很难鉴定

评论员推理过程是：有医保国家因此有一半报告是假的（隐含前提是，没有医保的国家，颈椎报告数字准确）

argument反对的是评论员的假设：无医保国家数字准确－－－－－－－－其实无医保国家，其数字是缩水的，所以基于缩水数字得出的 twice也不准。