In municipalities where home insurance delivers compensation for property destruction resulting from damage caused by natural events such as tornadoes or hurricanes (known as “acts of god”), reports of incurring such losses are a little more than three times as common as they are in municipalities where “acts of god” are not compensated. At the moment, there is no definitive way to measure whether a given event is an “act of god.” Regardless, it would be unreasonable to say, like many commentators, that in municipalities where increased numbers of “acts of god” are being reported, more than half of the reported instances are falsified. Obviously, in municipalities where home insurance does not offer compensation for property loss as a result of “acts of god,” homeowners have little reason to report “acts of god” from which they have suffered and are not helped to recover in any official capacity.
In the argument given, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?
【选项】
The first is a fact that the argument is concerned with; the second is a statement against some of the conclusions that might be drawn from that fact.
选项是否正确？