Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

 It is currently 25 May 2015, 01:56

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# In December of 1987 an automobile manufacture pleaded no

Author Message
TAGS:
Manager
Joined: 28 Jul 2009
Posts: 156
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 61 [0], given: 4

In December of 1987 an automobile manufacture pleaded [#permalink]  25 Nov 2009, 01:03
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

30% (02:09) correct 70% (01:06) wrong based on 81 sessions
In December of 1987 an automobile manufacture pleaded no contest to criminal charges of odometer tampering and agreed to pay more than $16 million in civil damages for cars that were test-driven with their odometers disconnected (A) cars that were test-driven with their odometers disconnected (B) cars that it had test-driven with their disconnected odometers (C) its cars having been test-driven with disconnected odometers (D) having test-driven cars with their odometers disconnected (E) having cars that were test-driven with disconnected odometers e-GMAT Representative Joined: 02 Nov 2011 Posts: 1840 Followers: 1464 Kudos [?]: 4414 [1] , given: 213 Re: In December of 1987 an automobile manufacture pleaded no [#permalink] 22 Jan 2013, 09:18 1 This post received KUDOS Expert's post Hi All, In December of 1987 an automobile manufacture pleaded no contest to criminal charges of odometer tampering and agreed to pay more than$16 million in civil damages for cars that were test-driven with their odometers disconnected.

Understanding the intended meaning of the sentence is the key to get to the correct answer choice. The automobile manufacturer agreed to pay the fine for its action. It agreed to pay for the action of test-driving the cars which had their odometers disconnected.

Per the original choice, the auto manufacturers agreed to pay fine for the cars and not for their action. This distorts the intended meaning of the sentence.

PoE:

(A) cars that were test-driven with their odometers disconnected: Incorrect for the reason stated above.

(B) cars that it had test-driven with their disconnected odometers: Incorrect. Same error as in choice A.

(C) its cars having been test-driven with disconnected odometers: Incorrect. Same error as in choice A.

(D) having test-driven cars with their odometers disconnected: Correct. This choice correctly conveys the action for which the auto manufacturers agreed to pay the fine.

(E) having cars that were test-driven with disconnected odometers: Incorrect. Per this choice, the auto manufacturers agreed to pay the fine for “having cars”. This is not the intended meaning.

Hope this helps.
Thanks.
_________________

Learn how eGMATers improved their GMAT scores by 100+ points - Click here

Learn about our newly released Quant Online course here.

Joined: 20 Aug 2009
Posts: 312
Location: Tbilisi, Georgia
Schools: Stanford (in), Tuck (WL), Wharton (ding), Cornell (in)
Followers: 14

Kudos [?]: 101 [0], given: 69

Re: In December of 1987 an automobile manufacture pleaded [#permalink]  25 Nov 2009, 08:33
SC is my weakest area, but I'll try to crack this one

"with their odometers disconnected" vs "with disconnected odometers"

It's the matter of concision, not about grammatical mistakes. I consider "with disconnected odometers" better choice. We have 3:2 split and (A), (B), (D) are wrong

(C) vs (E)

(C) its cars having been test-driven with disconnected odometers
(E) having cars that were test-driven with disconnected odometers

And again (E) as it is more concise version, (C) sounds clearly awkward

(E)

Manager
Joined: 27 May 2009
Posts: 222
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 47 [0], given: 2

Re: In December of 1987 an automobile manufacture pleaded [#permalink]  25 Nov 2009, 09:22
Same here ........ out of C & E .....

IMO E

Wats the OA?
_________________

I do not suffer from insanity. I enjoy every minute of it.

Manager
Joined: 28 Aug 2009
Posts: 196
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 51 [0], given: 1

Re: In December of 1987 an automobile manufacture pleaded [#permalink]  25 Nov 2009, 12:04
DRIVE A CAR WITH (DISCONNECTED ODOMETERS)..AS IF DISCONNECTED ODOMETERS IS SOME KIND OF A FEATURE IN A CAR
"WITH THEIR ODOMETERS DISCONNECTED" FAR BETTER CONVEYS THE MEANING CHOICE IS BETWEEN 'A' AND 'D'
WILL GO WITH 'D' BEACUSE 'A' GIVES A FEELING THAT THE CO. HAD LAUNCHED MANY
CARS AND ONLY SOME OF THEM HAD THE ODOS DISCONNECTED AND FOR WHOM
IT HAD TO PAY DAMAGES...WELL IT MIGHT BE TRUE BUT SOMEHOW D IS MORE
GENERIC AND SPECIFIES THE MEANING WITHOUT AMBIGUITIES
D for me
Senior Manager
Joined: 29 Jul 2009
Posts: 314
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 221 [0], given: 9

Re: In December of 1987 an automobile manufacture pleaded [#permalink]  25 Nov 2009, 12:33
shalva wrote:
SC is my weakest area, but I'll try to crack this one

"with their odometers disconnected" vs "with disconnected odometers"

It's the matter of concision, not about grammatical mistakes. I consider "with disconnected odometers" better choice. We have 3:2 split and (A), (B), (D) are wrong

Actually I think this works the other way around. The correct option is "with their odometers disconnected". If you say with disconnected odometers it seems as if "disconnected odometers" were a kind of odometers.

I drive during the day,with the lights of my car disconnected
I drive during the day,with the disconnected lights of my car.
Joined: 20 Aug 2009
Posts: 312
Location: Tbilisi, Georgia
Schools: Stanford (in), Tuck (WL), Wharton (ding), Cornell (in)
Followers: 14

Kudos [?]: 101 [0], given: 69

Re: In December of 1987 an automobile manufacture pleaded [#permalink]  25 Nov 2009, 13:00
mikeCoolBoy wrote:
Actually I think this works the other way around. The correct option is "with their odometers disconnected". If you say with disconnected odometers it seems as if "disconnected odometers" were a kind of odometers.

I drive during the day,with the lights of my car disconnected
I drive during the day,with the disconnected lights of my car.

Well, as I've already said, I'm not sure.... Though I still prefer "disconnected odometers"

I suppose it all boils down to D vs E....
Senior Manager
Joined: 21 Jul 2009
Posts: 366
Schools: LBS, INSEAD, IMD, ISB - Anything with just 1 yr program.
Followers: 15

Kudos [?]: 113 [0], given: 22

Re: In December of 1987 an automobile manufacture pleaded [#permalink]  25 Nov 2009, 16:28
........ | an automobile manufacturer pleaded no contest | ....... | and agreed to pay | ....... | for (is a substitute of because, a conjunction)
A) reasoning is incomplete and inadequately phrased.
B) cars that it had (as if the automobile company only performed) test-driven with their disconnected odometers (as if the cars were driven using disconnected odometers unlike cars with odometers disconnected were driven).
C) both its and having been are totally awkward.
D) correct option.
E) again having is not required.

My answer is D, what's the OA?
_________________

I am AWESOME and it's gonna be LEGENDARY!!!

Manager
Joined: 24 Jun 2009
Posts: 60
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 25 [0], given: 2

Re: In December of 1987 an automobile manufacture pleaded [#permalink]  25 Nov 2009, 16:48
bsv180985 wrote:
In December of 1987 an automobile manufacture pleaded no contest to criminal charges of odometer tampering and agreed to pay more than $16 million in civil damages for cars that were test-driven with their odometers disconnected (A) cars that were test-driven with their odometers disconnected (B) cars that it had test-driven with their disconnected odometers (C) its cars having been test-driven with disconnected odometers (D) having test-driven cars with their odometers disconnected (E) having cars that were test-driven with disconnected odometers E suggests that the company just HAD cars that were driven with disconnected odometers. D suggests that THE COMPANY TEST DROVE THEM with the odometers disconnected. I think D is correct - it makes more sense that the company gets charged for doing the test driving rather than just possessing the cars. Manager Joined: 19 Nov 2007 Posts: 227 Followers: 1 Kudos [?]: 131 [0], given: 1 Re: In December of 1987 an automobile manufacture pleaded [#permalink] 25 Nov 2009, 23:57 (A) cars that were test-driven with their odometers disconnected - IMO the correct answer. The author probably wants to convey that the automobile manufacture is criminally charged for selling (implied in the sentence) cars that were test-driven with car’s odometer disconnected. (B) cars that it had test-driven with their disconnected odometers. -“it” is not required here. Hence Incorrect (C) its cars having been test-driven with disconnected odometers -“its” is not required here and ,moreover, the sentence is passive. Hence Incorrect (D) having test-driven cars with their odometers disconnected Nobody is criminally charged for having cars. So this doesn’t make sense to me. Hence Incorrect (E) having cars that were test-driven with disconnected odometers -Nobody is criminally charged for having cars. So this doesn’t make sense to me. Hence Incorrect Manager Joined: 29 Jun 2009 Posts: 52 Followers: 0 Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 4 Re: In December of 1987 an automobile manufacture pleaded [#permalink] 26 Nov 2009, 01:54 IMO D.. 'Having' is required otherwise it doesn't make much sense. 'with their odometers disconnected ' is better than'disconnected odometers'. Intern Joined: 20 Oct 2009 Posts: 40 Followers: 0 Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 0 Re: In December of 1987 an automobile manufacture pleaded [#permalink] 28 Nov 2009, 08:17 bsv180985 wrote: In December of 1987 an automobile manufacture pleaded no contest to criminal charges of odometer tampering and agreed to pay more than$16 million in civil damages for cars that were test-driven with their odometers disconnected
(A) cars that were test-driven with their odometers disconnected
(B) cars that it had test-driven with their disconnected odometers
(C) its cars having been test-driven with disconnected odometers
(D) having test-driven cars with their odometers disconnected
(E) having cars that were test-driven with disconnected odometers

I honestly believe that the answer here should be B. We need the past perfect to indicate an action occured before another event in the past. the test drive took place before the automobile manufacture pleaded no contest to criminal charges. other answer choices made it look like the test drive took place simultaniously with the pleading

Last edited by GMATFIGHTER on 29 Nov 2009, 01:09, edited 1 time in total.
Intern
Joined: 20 Oct 2009
Posts: 40
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 0

Re: In December of 1987 an automobile manufacture pleaded [#permalink]  29 Nov 2009, 01:18
I actually just remembered an important point leading me to agree that the answer here should be D. The construction "having + past participle" also indicates an action in the past before the main verb of the sentence. The main verbs of this sentence are "pleaded" and "agreed", so "having test driven" took place before the "pleaded." Another mistake I made with option B is that "that" would imply that there are other cars that the manufacturer didn't test drive. We don't know whether the manufacturer test drove most of these cars or a small number of them. I think it would make sense that he's in court because he did a mistake when he test drove ALL the cars. So option D says "having test driven cars" implies that we're talking about all the cars that he had were tested.

another mistake I've picked up from option B is that it has the "it." I believe there could be a typo in the question because I think it should be "manufacturer" rather than "manufacture." the company itself can plead in court, but it's rather a person who can do that, so the "it" in option B is simply wrong.
Senior Manager
Joined: 18 Aug 2009
Posts: 437
Schools: UT at Austin, Indiana State University, UC at Berkeley
WE 1: 5.5
WE 2: 5.5
WE 3: 6.0
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 66 [0], given: 16

Re: In December of 1987 an automobile manufacture pleaded [#permalink]  04 Jan 2010, 22:16
What is OA, will be waiting for clear elaborate OE.
_________________

Never give up,,,

Manager
Joined: 19 Jan 2009
Posts: 74
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 26 [0], given: 2

Re: In December of 1987 an automobile manufacture pleaded [#permalink]  05 Jan 2010, 00:52
OA - D.

They've paid for HAVING TEST DRIVEN CARS,
not for cars or for having cars.
Intern
Joined: 05 Jan 2010
Posts: 4
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0

Re: In December of 1987 an automobile manufacture pleaded [#permalink]  05 Jan 2010, 08:17
Hi,my first post in the club
My 2 cents on the sc:

In December of 1987 an automobile manufacture pleaded no contest to criminal charges of odometer tampering and agreed to pay more than $16 million in civil damages for cars that were test-driven with their odometers disconnected (A) cars that were test-driven with their odometers disconnected (B) cars that it had test-driven with their disconnected odometers (C) its cars having been test-driven with disconnected odometers (D) having test-driven cars with their odometers disconnected (E) having cars that were test-driven with disconnected odometers D is also wrong as i feel their opens confusion here, so ANS shud be E Intern Joined: 30 Sep 2009 Posts: 17 Followers: 0 Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 0 Re: In December of 1987 an automobile manufacture pleaded [#permalink] 23 Feb 2010, 02:09 Here is my reasoning. In December of 1987 an automobile manufacturer pleaded no contest to criminal charges of odometer tampering and agreed to pay more than$16 million
in civil damages for cars that were test-driven with
their odometers disconnected

(A) cars that were test-driven with their odometers
disconnected -> Sounds like manufacturer pays 16M for the cars
(B) cars that it had test-driven with their disconnected
odometers -> Sounds like manufacturer pays 16M for the cars
(C) its cars having been test-driven with disconnected
odometers -> Sounds like manufacturer pays 16M for its cars

We are left with D and E
(D) having test-driven cars with their odometers
disconnected
(E) having cars that were test-driven with disconnected
odometers

I choose D as it is more direct to convey the idea that Manufacturer is fined because of his action of test-driving the cars without the device on.

SVP
Joined: 17 Feb 2010
Posts: 1560
Followers: 13

Kudos [?]: 286 [0], given: 6

Re: In December of 1987 an automobile manufacture pleaded [#permalink]  30 Jun 2010, 19:15
can anyone explain why C is incorrect?
Intern
Joined: 29 Jul 2010
Posts: 46
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 1

Re: In December of 1987 an automobile manufacture pleaded [#permalink]  13 Sep 2010, 07:20
(A) cars that were test-driven with their odometers disconnected - the auto manufacturer agreed to pay not for cars..but for driving the cars with odometer disconnected
(B) cars that it had test-driven with their disconnected odometers - it and the Error remains
(C) its cars having been test-driven with disconnected odometers -its
(D) having test-driven cars with their odometers disconnected - correct.
(E) having cars that were test-driven with disconnected odometers - Same as with A
Manager
Joined: 07 Aug 2010
Posts: 84
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 16 [0], given: 9

Re: In December of 1987 an automobile manufacture pleaded [#permalink]  03 Oct 2010, 20:40
D
Re: In December of 1987 an automobile manufacture pleaded   [#permalink] 03 Oct 2010, 20:40
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
In December of 1987 an automobile manufacturer pleaded no 2 24 Apr 2006, 08:41
In December of 1987 an automobile manufacturer pleaded no 3 28 Feb 2006, 10:34
In December of 1987 an automobile manufacturer pleaded no 6 24 Nov 2005, 11:48
In December of 1987 an automobile manufacturer pleaded no 6 02 Nov 2005, 18:41
In December of 1987 an automobile manufacturer pleaded no 4 01 Nov 2005, 13:12
Display posts from previous: Sort by