[問題]GWD23-28

[ergh]

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?

A.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.
B.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.
C.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.
D.The first is a claim that the argument disputes; the second is a narrower claim that the argument accepts.
E.The first is a claim that has been used to support a conclusion that the argument accepts; the second is that conclusion.

參考答案為C，我試著逐句瞭解，煩請大大幫我看看有無錯誤。
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.→此為這題最主要要探討的調查結果，若國家的車險有補助該w傷害時，發生該傷害的頻率為沒有給予補助的國家的2倍。
Some commentators have argued, correctly, that since there is presently no objective test for whiplash,spurious reports of whiplash injuries cannot be readily identified.有些評論家則認為因為沒有w的客觀性測試，所以這些具有質疑性w傷害的報告不能即時地判別其真偽。

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.然而，這些評論家便錯誤地下個結論：高w傷害的報告中有一半是具懷疑性的；沒有w傷害補助的國家，人們是因為缺乏誘因去報導該w傷害

報告：w傷害（有補助的國家）〉w傷害（無補助的國家）
評論家：針對高w傷害的數字提出質疑
作者不認同評論家的觀點

所以作者的目的，並非確定該報告的正確性，只是針對評論家提出質疑囉
不知以上的分析有否錯誤，若有還望請大大指正。謝謝。

[fsab00037748]

嗯嗯 贊成

另, 本月JJ (06年11月) 出現一題變形題
如下, 轉自CD

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


目前選項missing, 若後續有的話,麻煩協力補上囉..