GWD30-26

笨笨可可

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.

The first is a claim that has been used to support a conclusion that the argument accepts; the second is that conclusion.

我选了A，我认为这个观点是作者承认的阿？？

怎么会是反对的呢？

alice1880505

clearly ,文章的观点是反对sentence2的观点的

minirainbow

想要请教一下

第一个BF

(A) The first is a finding whose accuracy is evaluated in the argument

(C) The first is a finding whose implications are at issue in the argument

我晓得A的后面是错的

但我想知道第一个是不是2个都正确

谢谢

flyuo2006

我选的B

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--------->  The first is a finding whose accuracy is evaluated in the argument;

spurious reports of whiplash injuries cannot be readily identified.----->the second is evidence that has been used to challenge the accuracy of that finding.

我觉得很合理啊,到底哪里不对啊?还有at issue的是implications吗?