提问og12 79

lorinlee

79. 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.

答案为d。“第一句是发现，其含义被质疑；第二句是声称，质疑了该发现的含义”。
第一句理解。疑问：第二句是声称，但应该不是“质疑”了该发现吧，而应该是“解释”了该发现的原因，提出argument。

lorinlee

顶一下

HarrisZheng

没有bold face 怎么帮你看

lorinlee

Sorry，怎么加重？

HarrisZheng

编辑帖子 里面可以选字体

EMMALIULIU

Lz,我刚刚做好这道题，我的理解是第一个boldface阐述一个现象，好引出下面的conclusion，即中间那段未加粗的。第二个boldface是反对这个conclusion的。conclusion说很多上报受伤的人都是虚假的，甚至有一半。但是第二个boldface说事实上确实有人受到这种伤害，只是没有诱因（保费赔偿）去促使他们上报。
自己的想法，望指出错误。

lorinlee

题目中说有保险国家的受伤人是无保险国家受伤人的2倍。有人质疑有保险国家的受伤人是虚报，作者说这种质疑没有被证实所以不能信之。进而提出自己的观点，造成2倍的原因是无保险国家的受伤就没有动力去申报。后一个bf是削弱了由第一个现象引申出的结论。所以我认为第二个bf不应该是“to argue against derivingcertain implications from that finding",而应该是argue the argument from that finding

lorinlee

求高人解答

HarrisZheng

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.

第一句提出一个现象
第二句 反驳对此现象做出的某个解释 第二句的deriving certain implications 指的是conclusion drawn by some commentators that in the countries with the higher rates of reported whiplash injuries, half of the reported cases are spurious.  也就是说 第二句的作用是反对评论家从此现象得到他们的结论

冥王星11号

顶一下，明白了，感谢！