gwd-30-26

chenjinchent

Q26: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.  

包含compensation for whiplash injuries 的国家reports of whiplash injuries 比例高

Some commentators 说虚假的reports不能readily identified

作者说：有一半的确是虚假reports,然后说是不cover whiplash injuries的国家have little incentive to report

我搞不懂其中的逻辑：commentators认为比列高是因为虚假报告多，而作者说是因为比列低的国家人们很少报告，以此来反驳？

daoying

作者说：有一半的确是虚假reports

I think this understainding is wrong. 

Based on ths sentence: " These commentators are 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." ,  writer does NOT think half of the reports are false.  Instead he says that those commentators are wrong to conclude that half ot he reports are false.

riter does NOT think half of the reports are false.  Instead he says that those commentators are wrong to conclude that half ot he reports are false.

Writer thinks that " people often have little incentive to report"   because "automobile insurance does not include compensation for whiplash"

So to sum up: why report rate in one country is so high? commentators think because half of reports are false but writer thinks it's because other countries people don't bother reporting.