求助:GWD 30-26,答案是B吧?

LilyJune

GWD 30-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. 

正确答案为C,我认为是B.

C 中第一part正确,我也同意第二part中的intermediate conclusion, 但是这个intermediate conclusion并没有被used to support a conclusion that the argument criticizes.

文章中Argument criticizes的conclusion为" half of the reported cases are spurious",而BF2 削弱了这个conclusion.因为我们不能identity spurious reports,所以不能说half of report 是spurious.如果是support的话,应该加强说half of the report是spurious.

而B中的推理正好为: 因为我们不能identify spurious report, 所以half of report 是spurious 是不正确的,challenge 了正确性.

stevegt

C:

BF 1, fact/finding

BF2, intermediate conclusion

Conclusion, 反对 intermediate conclusion,注意however

很清楚，答案是C

anchorets

Well, I choosed D.

I did not choose B, because the second part dose not look like

an evidence for me. It is more like an subjective evaluation.

I did not choose C because I think the second part is used to

support a conclusion that the argument "SUPPORT." Why the answer

is so different from my idea.

And, I still have no idea why D is wrong?

Hope someone can share opinions. I can not find any other discussion except this one. (Why so few people discuss this one?

Is this one so simple? Start feeling like an idiot....)