28. GWD30-Q28: 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. resently, no objective test for whiplash exists, so it is true that spurious reports of whiplash injuries cannot be readily identified. Nevertheless, these facts do not warrant a conclusion that has been drawn by some commentators: 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? 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 claim that has been used to support a position that the argument accepts; the second is a position that the argument rejects. C. The first is a finding whose accuracy is evaluated in the argument; the second is the judgment reached by the argument concerning the accuracy of the finding. D. The first is a finding whose implications are at issue in the argument; the second is the judgment reached by the argument concerning one alleged implication. E. The first is a finding, the explanation of which is at issue in the argument; the second is an objection that has been raised against the explanation that the argument defends.
这道题目我是做对的，没有在这2个选项之间纠结，跟大家分享下我的思路吧。 最为明显的是，accuracy of the finding是错的，因为第一段粗体在文章中的作用并不是用来分析保修范围大造成保修的case多这个事实是对还是错，文章的意思是针对“已经有了保修case多”这个事实来分析它的原因，所以明显是the implication of. 若是分析针对的是“究竟保修多了？还是少了？”这样就是分析finding的准备度了。不知道这样大家能理解么？
这道题目我是做对的，没有在这2个选项之间纠结，跟大家分享下我的思路吧。 最为明显的是，accuracy of the finding是错的，因为第一段粗体在文章中的作用并不是用来分析保修范围大造成保修的case多这个事实是对还是错，文章的意思是针对“已经有了保修case多”这个事实来分析它的原因，所以明显是the implication of. 若是分析针对的是“究竟保修多了？还是少了？”这样就是分析finding的准备度了。不知道这样大家能理解么？
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2011-4-21 00:26:20
resently, no objective test for whiplash exists, so it is true that spurious reports of whiplash injuries cannot be readily identified. Nevertheless, these facts do not warrant a conclusion that has been drawn by some commentators: 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.
收藏
收藏
