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.
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作者: liuqiangde 时间: 2012-12-16 06:56
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作者: callmesoli 时间: 2012-12-16 21:17
明白了，感谢！
欢迎光临 国际顶尖MBA申请交流平台--TOPWAY MBA (http://forum.topway.org/)
