In countries where automobile insurance includes compensation for whiplash injuries sustained in automobile accidents, reports of having suffered such...
GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions
Source: Official Guide
...
...
Post a Query
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 agreement given, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?
Solution
Understanding the Passage
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| "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." | What it says: Countries that pay insurance for whiplash injuries see double the number of whiplash reports compared to countries that don't pay for whiplash. Visualization: Country A (pays for whiplash): 200 reports per 10,000 accidents vs. Country B (no payment): 100 reports per 10,000 accidents What it does: Sets up a puzzling fact that needs explanation - why would one country have twice as many whiplash injuries? Source: Author's factual observation |
| "Some commentators have argued, correctly, that since" | What it says: The author is about to present what some other people think, and the author agrees with part of their argument. What it does: Introduces outside opinions that the author partially supports Source: Author introducing others' views |
| (Boldface 1) "there is presently no objective test for whiplash" | What it says: Doctors cannot definitively prove whether someone really has whiplash or not - there's no reliable medical test. Visualization: Real whiplash case: Patient says "my neck hurts" + Doctor finds no measurable evidence = Cannot prove or disprove. Fake whiplash case: Patient says "my neck hurts" + Doctor finds no measurable evidence = Cannot prove or disprove What it does: Provides the foundation for why fake whiplash claims might be possible Source: Commentators' view (which author agrees with) |
| "spurious reports of whiplash injuries cannot be readily identified." | What it says: Because there's no objective test, fake whiplash claims are hard to catch. Visualization: Insurance company receives 100 whiplash claims → Cannot distinguish which of the 100 are real vs. fake What it does: Explains the logical consequence of having no objective test - fake claims can slip through Source: Commentators' view (which author agrees with) |
| "These commentators are, however, wrong to draw the further conclusion that" | What it says: The author now disagrees with what these same commentators conclude next. What it does: Signals the author is about to reject the commentators' main conclusion Source: Author's disagreement |
| (Boldface 2) "in the countries with the higher rates of reported whiplash injuries, half of the reported cases are spurious" | What it says: The commentators wrongly conclude that in countries with double the whiplash reports, 50% of those extra reports must be fake. Visualization: Countries with insurance coverage: 200 whiplash reports → Commentators claim 100 are real + 100 are fake. Countries without coverage: 100 whiplash reports → All 100 are real What it does: Presents the specific conclusion that the author wants to attack Source: Commentators' conclusion (which author disagrees with) |
| "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." | What it says: The author argues that in countries without whiplash coverage, people who really do have whiplash simply don't bother reporting it because they won't get paid. Visualization: Country without coverage: Person gets real whiplash → Thinks "Why report it? I won't get any money" → Doesn't file claim. Country with coverage: Same person → Thinks "I'll get compensated" → Files legitimate claim What it does: Provides the author's alternative explanation that undermines the commentators' conclusion Source: Author's main argument |
Overall Structure
The author presents a statistical puzzle (double whiplash reports), acknowledges that commentators correctly identify why fake claims are possible, but then rejects their conclusion about the scope of fraud by offering an alternative explanation.
Main Conclusion: The commentators are wrong to conclude that half of the higher whiplash reports are spurious.
Boldface Segments
- Boldface 1: there is presently no objective test for whiplash
- Boldface 2: in the countries with the higher rates of reported whiplash injuries, half of the reported cases are spurious
Boldface Understanding
Boldface 1:
- Function: Provides the reason why spurious whiplash claims cannot be easily detected
- Direction: Supports a premise that the author accepts (that fake claims are hard to catch)
Boldface 2:
- Function: States the specific conclusion that the commentators draw, which the author explicitly rejects
- Direction: Opposes the author's ultimate position (the author says this conclusion is wrong)
Structural Classification
Boldface 1:
- Structural Role: Supporting evidence for an intermediate conclusion that the author accepts
- Predicted Answer Patterns: "evidence for a position that supports the argument" or "a consideration that the author accepts"
Boldface 2:
- Structural Role: A conclusion being argued against; the main target of the author's disagreement
- Predicted Answer Patterns: "a conclusion that the author disputes" or "a position that the author argues against"
Answer Choices Explained
A
The first is evidence that has been used to support a conclusion that the argument criticizes; the second is that conclusion.
✓ CORRECT - The first boldface (no objective test for whiplash) is evidence used by commentators to support their conclusion that half the cases are spurious, which the author criticizes. The second boldface is exactly the conclusion the commentators draw that the author calls wrong.
B
The first is evidence that has been used to support a conclusion that the argument criticizes; the second is the position that the argument defends.
✗ WRONG - While the first part is correct, the second boldface is what the commentators conclude, not what the author defends. The author explicitly disagrees with this position.
C
The first is a claim that has been used to support a conclusion that the argument accepts; the second is the position that the argument defends.
✗ WRONG - While the author agrees with the first boldface itself, it supports a conclusion (half are spurious) that the author rejects, not accepts. The author also opposes the second position, calling it wrong.
D
The first is an intermediate conclusion that has been used to support a conclusion that the argument defends; the second is the position that the argument opposes.
✗ WRONG - The first boldface isn't a conclusion but evidence, and it doesn't support a position the author defends. However, the second part correctly identifies that the author opposes this position.
E
The first presents a claim that is disputed in the argument; the second is the conclusion that has been drawn on the basis of that claim.
✗ WRONG - The author actually agrees with the first boldface, saying the commentators argued 'correctly' about this point. However, the second part correctly identifies that this is a conclusion drawn from the first boldface and other reasoning.
Rate this Solution
Tell us what you think about this solution
Forum Discussions
Start a new discussion
Post
Load More