<b> 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. </b> Presently, no objective test for whiplash exists, so it is true that spurious reports of whiplash injuries cannot be readily identified. Nevertheless, these facts do not warrant the conclusion drawn by some commentators, that in the countries with the higher rates of reported whiplash injuries, half of the reported cases are spurious. Clearly, <b> 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 </b>. In the argument given, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles? ['The first is a claim that the argument disputes; the second is a conclusion that has been based on that claim.', 'The first is a claim that has been used to support a conclusion that the argument accepts; the second is that conclusion.', 'The first is evidence that has been used to support a conclusion for which the argument provides further evidence; the second is the main conclusion of the argument.', 'The first is a finding whose implications are at issue in the argument; the second is a claim presented in order to argue against deriving certain implications from that finding.']