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?
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 cannotbe readily identified. These commentators are,
however, wrong to draw the further conclusion that in the
countrieswith the higherrates of reported whiplash injuries, half of
the reported cases are spurious: clearly, in countires where
automobile insurance doesnot 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 evidence that has been used to support a conclusion
that the arguemnt criticizes; the second is that conclusion
B: The first is evidence that has been used to support a conclusion
that the arguemnt criticizes; the second is the position that the
argument defends
C: The first is a claim that has been used to support a conclusion
that the argument accepts; the second is the position that the a
rgument defends
D: The first is an intermediate conclusion that has been used to
support a conclusion that the argument defends; the second is
the position that the argument opposes.
E: 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.
A: The first is evidence that has been used to support a conclusion
that the argument criticizes; the second is that conclusion
This is correct answer it matches the definition of the role, while the others do not.
B: The first is evidence that has been used to support a conclusion
that the argument criticizes; the second is the position that the
argument defends
Right on the first one, wrong on the second one: the argument does not defend the conclusion in the 2nd boldface.
C: The first is a claim that has been used to support a conclusion
that the argument accepts; the second is the position that the argument defends
Wrong on both counts: the argument does not accept or defend the conclusion.
D: The first is an intermediate conclusion that has been used to
support a conclusion that the argument defends; the second is
the position that the argument opposes.
the first is not an intermediate conclusion, but a hard core fact. Also, the conclusion it supports is not one the argument defends.
E: 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.
The claim in the first is not disputed: you cannot argue with the fact that there is no objective test for whiplash.
There are no magic shortcuts for these. Read the argument, disregarding the boldface portions at first, just to get an idea what's going on. Then come up with your own definition of the specific roles of the boldface portions: are they premises/conclusions? If the argument has two sides, are they on the same side or opposing side? Do they support each other or oppose each other?
In this argument there are two sides:
1) some commentators say that half of the reported cases are spurious, based on the premise (1st boldface) that there is no objective test for whiplash.
2) the opposing side is the one the argument supports: the commentators are wrong in reaching the conclusion (2nd boldface) that the reports are spurious. It's not that people file false claims, but rather that people report less if no money is involved.
So the first is a piece of evidence that supports the conclusion in the second, but the argument opposes that conclusion.
With this definition, go to the answer choices and aggressively eliminate those who do not match your definition. If you've done a good job of analyzing the argument and the roles of the boldfaces, this is where you can save time: eliminate the answer choices that clearly do not match your definition, and whatever's left must be the right one.
Ron的解释，超级详细，崇拜RON!!!
well, first off, you can eliminate choice (d) pretty quickly, on the grounds that "there is presently no objective test for whiplash" is a fact.
since this is a fact, it can't possibly be a "conclusion" of any kind; conclusions must be claims, not facts. (a fact can't be a conclusion because facts don't require supporting arguments; you can just come out and state them, because they're, well, facts.)
from this point, you don't even have to process the actual material of the argument -- you can just read the transitions, which will give you a remarkably exact sense of what's going on in there.
Some commentators have argued, correctly, that, since (bold #1)...
--> the speaker says "correctly", so it's clear that the speaker accepts bold #1 as correct. on the other hand, that's not significant, because #1 is factual, and the gmat doesn't contain stated facts that turn out to be false (only claims are weakened/disproved on gmat problems).
what's significant is that the fact is used by "some commentators", i.e., other people.**
These commentators are, however, wrong to draw the further conclusion that (bold #2)
--> bold #2 is the other guys' conclusion, and our speaker thinks it's wrong.
so, we want an answer choice that says, "bold #1 is a fact that the other guys use in making their case; bold #2 is the other guys' main point, which is wrong according to our narrator."
that's (a).
(b) is wrong because our narrator doesn't defend the other guys' conclusion; (s)he does the opposite.
(c) is wrong for the same reason as (b), but also because it mis-identifies a fact (bold #1) as a "claim".
(d) is wrong for two reasons: because it mistakenly labels a factual statement as a "conclusion" (as stated above), and also because it says that the fact is used to support an argument with which the narrator agrees. the opposite is true; that fact is used by the narrator's opponent.
(e) is wrong because it says that our narrator disagrees with #1, rather than with #2.
--
**in fact, as soon as you see "some people think...", "it is commonly thought that...", etc. - basically, any form of The other guys think X - you can go ahead and assume that the narrator (= main argument) is going to oppose that point of view.
after all, that's the only sensible rationale for introducing "the other guys" into the argument in the first place. (if the narrator agreed with the other guys, then there would be no point in citing the other guys at all -- i.e., rather than saying The other guys think X, and they're right, the narrator will just say X.)
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2016-7-27 17:13:14
收藏
收藏
楼主
