OG12 79 求思路

一只追梦的猫

In countries where automobile insurance includes compensation for whiplash injuries sustained in automobile accidents,reports of having suffered such injuries are twice as freguent as they are in countries where whiplash is not covered .Presently,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 the conclusion drawn by some commentators that in the countries with the higher rates of reported cases are spurious . Clearly , in countries where automobile insurance does not include compensation for whiplash , people often have 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 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 id 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

这道题看得我老半天了，还是不明白答案啊，这2句话的关系究竟是神马，求高人解答，谢谢 答案是D

sdcar2010

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?

A. 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.
B. 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.
C. 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.
D. The first is a claim that the argument disputes; the second is a narrower claim that the argument accepts.
E. The first is a claim that has been used to support a conclusion that the argument accepts; the second is that conclusion.

The answer of the above BF question is: C

AnWiHwLi

sdcar2010 发表于 2011-7-19 21:11
Here is a very similar BF. You might give it a try.In countries where automobile insurance includes  ...

I'd wanna know if A is correct answer as well. Thank you!

mogu724

sdcar2010 发表于 2011-7-19 21:01
In countries where automobile insurance includes compensation for whiplash injuries sustained in aut ...

d选项是什么意思啊。。。

饼干

sdcar2010 发表于 2011-7-19 21:11
Here is a very similar BF. You might give it a try.In countries where automobile insurance includes  ...

Is A the corret answer?

一只追梦的猫

明白了，谢谢大牛

sdcar2010

If you really want to try, here is a third version of the question. Just click the link:

http://twitpic.com/drwjq

sdcar2010

Here is a very similar BF. You might give it a try.

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?

A. 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.
B. 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.
C. 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.
D. The first is a claim that the argument disputes; the second is a narrower claim that the argument accepts.
E. The first is a claim that has been used to support a conclusion that the argument accepts; the second is that conclusion

sdcar2010

In countries where automobile insurance includes compensation for whiplash injuries sustained in automobile accidents,reports of having suffered such injuries are twice as freguent as they are in countries where whiplash is not covered  (fact). Presently, no objective test for whiplash exists,so it is true that spurious reports of whiplash injuries cannot be readily identified (concession). Nevertheless ,these facts do not warrant the conclusion drawn by some commentators that in the countries with the higher rates of reported cases are spurious (conclusion). Clearly , in countries where automobile insurance does not include compensation for whiplash , people often have incentive to report whiplash injuries that they actually have suffered (premise or supporting evidence).