7/20 一道黑脸题的众多变体(难)
同源题
GWD30-Q26: In countries where automobile insurance includes compensation for whiplash injuries sustained in automobile accidents, reports of having suffered suchinjuries are twice as frequent as they are in countries where whiplash is notcovered. Some commentators have argued, correctly, that since there is presently no objectivetest for whiplash, spurious reports of whiplash injuries cannot be readily identified. These commentators are, however, wrong to draw the further conclusion that inthe countries with the higher rates of reported whiplash injuries, half of thereported cases are spurious: clearly, incountries where automobile insurance does not include compensation forwhiplash, people often have little incentive to report whiplash injuries thatthey actually have suffered.
Inthe argument given, the two boldfaced portions play which of the followingroles? A. The first is a finding whose accuracy is evaluated in the argument; the second isan intermediate conclusion drawn to support the judgment reached by theargument on the accuracy of that finding. B. The first is a finding whose accuracy is evaluated in the argument; the second isevidence 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 secondis an intermediate conclusion that has been used to support a conclusion thatthe argument criticizes. D. The first is a claim that the argument disputes; thesecond is a narrower claim that the argument accepts. E. The first is a claim that has been used to support aconclusion that the argument accepts; the second is that conclusion. OA: C
GWD30-Q28: In countries where automobile insurance includes compensation for whiplash injuries sustained in automobile accidents, reports of having suffered suchinjuries are twice as frequent as they are in countries where whiplash is notcovered. Presently,no objective test for whiplash exists, so it is true that spurious reports ofwhiplash injuries cannot be readily identified. Nevertheless, these facts do notwarrant a conclusion that has been drawn by some commentators: that in the countries with the higher ratesof reported whiplash injuries, half of the reported cases are spurious. Clearly, in countries where automobileinsurance does not include compensation for whiplash, people often have littleincentive to report whiplash injuries that they actually have suffered.
Inthe argument given, the two boldfaced portions play which of the followingroles? A. The first is a claim that the argument disputes; thesecond is a conclusion that has been based on that claim. B. The first is claim that has been used to support aposition that the argument accepts; the second is a position that the argumentrejects. 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 secondis 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; thesecond is an objection that has been raised against theexplanation that the argument defends. OA: D
PREP08_cr 115. (24536-!-item-!-188;#058&000941)
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.
OA: A
OG12_78
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. 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 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 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 is 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.
OA: D
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.
=>fact/background: about report on injures
Some commentators have argued, correctly, that since there is presently no objective test for whiplash, spurious reports of whiplash injuries cannot be readily identified.
=>commentator's view: the repots is spurious
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:
=>author's view directly refute the main conlusion( not straightly stated in passage)
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.
=>support the author's main conclusion
哦 我觉得这个题的逻辑链是这样的:先是给出一个事实(在有xx伤赔偿的地方,XX伤赔偿的报告要比没有XX伤赔偿的地方多出一倍),然后根据这个事实+另外一个事实(没有对这种伤的客观评价)一些人得出一个结论:一些人伪造报告很难识别。然后作者发表了一个声明(这些人得出的进一步的结论说一半的报告都是伪造的是错误的),然后说出了自己的一个理由(在那些没有赔偿的地方,人们很少报告自己受伤)。
http://forum.chasedream.com/thread-508615-1-1.html 6#28,This facts是指上面提到的1.摩托车保险中包含whiplash injuries的国家A的此类受伤报告是没有包含的国家B的两倍2.实际上现在并不存在可以检测whiplash的方法,因此受伤报告难以鉴别。Nevertheless转折,下面的黑体部分对评论家根据上述facts得出的结论one implication产生质疑,结论说A国的报告有一半都是假的,B国的人就算受伤了也不上报。总的来说就是作者反对facts的推论,但没有对facts的真实性提出质疑。C错,选D
|