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?

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. The first is a claim that the argument disputes; the second is a narrower claim that the argument accepts.
5. The first is a claim that has been used to support a conclusion that the argument accepts; the second is that conclusion.  

答案c我觉得a。 文中说了Some commentators have argued, correctly,不会是c了

原文意思是:在一个国家,因为包括赔偿w的事故比不包括赔偿w的事故多,还以为没有客观的方法检验w,虚假的w报告不能被辨认,所以那些评论者错误的得出结论包括赔偿w的国家中,有一半的关于w的报告是假的,而不包括赔偿w的国家中人们没有动机去报告他们遭受的那些w

第2个黑体字是there is no objective test for whiplash的结论,也是作者用来批评commentator的

第一个黑体字是来暗示那些commentator说的话的

其中a中说的衡量结论的正确与否,其实原文好象是为了批评那些commentator的,而commentator 的结论就是根据第一个黑体字来的,所以不对

不知道理解的对不对,请高手指点