【Prep】有点不理解的一道逻辑题-In countries where automobile insurance includes compensation

andrealuo

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 evidence that has been used to support a conclusion that the argument criticizes; the second is that conclusion.
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.
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.
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.

正确答案是A，我选了B
所以在作者的position是什么呢？是最后一句话么？就是说尽管有很多fake得report但是还是不能对在suffer的人置之不理？

句子中间这个冒号又是什么意思呢？

benjaminsandro

你不用管作者观点是什么，看清这几个词就搞定了：
These commentators are, however, wrong to draw the further conclusion ......
作者亲口告诉你：他们这个结论不对。
这个结论显然就是一个作者反对的结论。

andrealuo

benjaminsandro 发表于 2015-5-24 17:13
你不用管作者观点是什么，看清这几个词就搞定了：
These commentators are, however, wrong to draw the f ...

谢谢你，明白了！

小小小小

看一下！               

Bradz

作者的argument是commentator的conclusion不完全正确，更准确地说，前一半正确（spurious reports of whiplash injuries cannot be readily identified），后一半错误（in the countries with the higher rates of reported whiplash injuries, half of the reported cases are spurious）。

第一个黑脸是commentator做出的conclusion的premise，第二个黑脸是commentator的conclusion的后半部分。

冒号后面是对冒号前面作者的argument（that commentators are wrong）提供的support。

Jez

Bradz 发表于 2016-10-21 12:30
作者的argument是commentator的conclusion不完全正确，更准确地说，前一半正确（spurious reports of whipl ...

是的 补充一下 冒号后面的理解是：
因为没有whiplash injuries报销，所以人们即使有whiplash injuries也不会report。
所以当whiplash injuries报销时，增多的report是因为人们乐于说出实情，而不是主要因为人们故意损坏。