看了sdcar2010的帖子，写的真的很精彩。我看完一章再总结OG上的题目，今天看到BF。被一道OG题目困惑了，冒昧请求您帮忙解答一下。
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. Answer-[D]
(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.
C不错在第一个evidence,只是后面的for which the argument provides further evidence， 这里并没有给出进一步的证据。（所谓证据就是事实，这里后面根本没有，都是写文章的人主观的说法，即都是一些概念，并非用事实，证据来解释）我认为，第二个黑体，当然也是main conclusion,但是因为C中的前面半句不对只能舍弃。 因为一个东西作为main conclusion,他的确还可以有其他作用，不需要一定要体现他main conclusion, 比方雷锋是好人，那么不仅他是好人，他还是男人。 不能被一点套牢。看选项D,的确反驳了一些评论家的评论（一半的”W"是有疑问的”多总结，多想，不用去怀疑正确选项，但是从正确选项来分析，然后把自己的思路弄得和正选一样，就好了，路漫长的，也蛮累的，加油作者: jeffcheung 时间: 2012-7-31 21:41
我觉得第二个黑体当结论有点牵强了，我觉得“所以，之前的解释是错的”这种带有主观感情色彩（啊啊啊 不知道该怎么表达，反正大概就是这个意思）的话更应该当做结论吧。。。第二个黑体明显还是在cite一些个客观存在，作者并没有进一步得出神马结论，哦哦不知道你看懂没。。。
关于finding是不是evidence的问题，首先看看finding在科林斯字典里的解释：someone‘s findings are the information they get or the conclusions they come to as the result of an investigation or some research.调查结果或者是研究结论，所以finding是不是conclusion不能一概而论。我觉得要看这个finding有没有被拿来支持某些东西，如果有的话，那他就是个evidence妥妥的。但是如果没有，我觉得就要分析一下下了，这个finding到底是从一堆研究中发现的一些个规律呢，还是用它去证明某些东西呢。在这个题里啊，注意这句话“ Nevertheless, these facts do not warrant the
conclusion drawn by some commentators that。。。”（我认为这句话才是本文的中心观点，你觉得内~）也就是这个fact是被作者拿来去warrant一些人的conclusion了，所以应该是可以算作是evidence的~
啊啊啊我说的有点支离破碎，希望没有误导你。。。只是自己的一丢丢小观点，open to discuss作者: thumbbunny 时间: 2012-8-1 06:26
