NEW HERE? LEARN MORE
closeclose
Last visit was: 24 Apr 2024, 06:48 It is currently 24 Apr 2024, 06:48
Decision Tracker
My Rewards
New posts
New comers' posts

Close
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
Your Progress

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
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel

In December of 1987 an automobile manufacturer pleaded no contest to

SORT BY:
Date
Kudos
Tags:
Find Similar Topics 
Show Tags
Hide Tags
User avatar
rahuluec
Manager
Manager
Joined: 06 Jul 2005
Posts: 91
Own Kudos [?]: 383 [46]
Given Kudos: 0
Location: Bangalore, India
Send PM
In December of 1987 an automobile manufacturer pleaded no contest to [#permalink] New post   Updated on: 20 Dec 2018, 09:38
4
Kudos
42
Bookmarks
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

85% (hard)

Question Stats:

41% (01:27) correct 59% (01:38) wrong based on 1597 sessions
Hide Show timer Statistics
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

(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
ShowHide Answer
Official Answer
D

Originally posted by rahuluec on 02 Nov 2005, 19:41.
Last edited by Bunuel on 20 Dec 2018, 09:38, edited 1 time in total.
Renamed the topic and edited the question.
Most Helpful Reply
User avatar
L
egmat
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 4346
Own Kudos [?]: 30781 [19]
Given Kudos: 635
GMAT Date: 08-19-2020
Send PM
Re: In December of 1987 an automobile manufacturer pleaded no contest to [#permalink] New post   22 Jan 2013, 10:18
11
Kudos
8
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
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.
Shraddha
User avatar
L
daagh
GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Status: enjoying
Posts: 5265
Own Kudos [?]: 42103 [12]
Given Kudos: 422
Location: India
WE:Education (Education)
Send PM
Re: In December of 1987 an automobile manufacturer pleaded no contest to [#permalink] New post   29 Mar 2011, 07:17
7
Kudos
5
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
Here is an another angle to this Q

Point1. The test- driving occurred prior to pleading. So that must be expressed in either a past perfect or some such equivalent expression that brings out that priorness

Point 2. ‘Disconnected motors’ is inferior to ‘odometers that were disconnected, because the former gives a feeling as if there is some special kind of odometers such as disconnected odometers and connected odometers.

B and D are in contention. But B suffers from using the inelegant phrase ‘disconnected odometers’.

D is a better choice for clearly bringing out that the tests had been carried out prior to pleading by marking the tests as ‘having test-driven’ and for using the more acceptable ‘ their odometers disconnected’
General Discussion
User avatar
GMATFIGHTER
Intern
Intern
Joined: 20 Oct 2009
Posts: 16
Own Kudos [?]: 205 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: In December of 1987 an automobile manufacturer pleaded no contest to [#permalink] New post   Updated on: 29 Nov 2009, 02:09
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

Originally posted by GMATFIGHTER on 28 Nov 2009, 09:17.
Last edited by GMATFIGHTER on 29 Nov 2009, 02:09, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
GMATFIGHTER
Intern
Intern
Joined: 20 Oct 2009
Posts: 16
Own Kudos [?]: 205 [2]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: In December of 1987 an automobile manufacturer pleaded no contest to [#permalink] New post   29 Nov 2009, 02:18
2
Kudos
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.
avatar
arnaudl
Intern
Intern
Joined: 30 Sep 2009
Posts: 9
Own Kudos [?]: 125 [1]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: In December of 1987 an automobile manufacturer pleaded no contest to [#permalink] New post   23 Feb 2010, 03:09
1
Kudos
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.

Please comment
avatar
rohinipathi
Intern
Intern
Joined: 29 Jul 2010
Posts: 12
Own Kudos [?]: 7 [2]
Given Kudos: 1
Send PM
Re: In December of 1987 an automobile manufacturer pleaded no contest to [#permalink] New post   13 Sep 2010, 08:20
2
Kudos
(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
User avatar
B
Pillarsofcreation
Manager
Manager
Joined: 21 Jun 2015
Posts: 96
Own Kudos [?]: 45 [2]
Given Kudos: 38
Location: India
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Finance
Schools: Haas '18 Sloan '18 Yale '18 LBS '18 Insead July'17 Wharton '18 Anderson '18 CBS '18 Johnson '19 (S)
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V35
GPA: 2.61
Send PM
Re: In December of 1987 an automobile manufacturer pleaded no contest to [#permalink] New post   07 Aug 2015, 02:18
1
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
I think it all boils down to meaning. I will only talk about D and E as most people have no problem in eliminating A,B and C. The placement of the word test-driven is important in the next two options.

(D) having test-driven cars with their odometers disconnected - Means that they paid charges because they test-drove cars with their odometer disconnected. Seems logical. If the company did this, then the whole process of test driving would be faulty and thus they will be sued if people find this out.

(E) having cars that were test-driven with disconnected odometers - Means the company had some cars that were test-driven without odomoters. The company had to pay for 'test-driving cars' and not for 'driving cars'

D is my choice.
User avatar
Kingsman
Intern
Intern
Joined: 11 Jan 2014
Posts: 23
Own Kudos [?]: 24 [0]
Given Kudos: 58
Location: Viet Nam
Concentration: Accounting, Finance
GPA: 3.17
WE:Analyst (Accounting)
Send PM
Re: In December of 1987 an automobile manufacturer pleaded no contest to [#permalink] New post   10 Mar 2016, 22:06
egmat wrote:
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.
Shraddha


Hi Shraddha,

I do not clearly understand your answer. Would you please help me more on this? Thanks in advance.
In (E), I thought that "that were test driven" modifies "cars" so the meaning will not be different from (D). Is there any different between "test driven cars" and "cars that were test driven" :).
User avatar
L
daagh
GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Status: enjoying
Posts: 5265
Own Kudos [?]: 42103 [0]
Given Kudos: 422
Location: India
WE:Education (Education)
Send PM
Re: In December of 1987 an automobile manufacturer pleaded no contest to [#permalink] New post   Updated on: 11 Mar 2016, 09:11
Expert Reply
The intent is clear here. The fine is for doing the crime of test driving cars whose odometers had been disconnected with an ulterior motive. The fine is not either for having the cars that were test-driven or for possessing the cars that were test-driven. The company can also escape if its cars were test driven not necessarily by the company but maybe even by some other entity. Only D establishes that the manufacturer itself did the crime. Hence D survies.

Originally posted by daagh on 11 Mar 2016, 08:33.
Last edited by daagh on 11 Mar 2016, 09:11, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
L
chetan2u
RC & DI Moderator
Joined: 02 Aug 2009
Status:Math and DI Expert
Posts: 11168
Own Kudos [?]: 31883 [2]
Given Kudos: 290
Send PM
Reviews Badge
Re: In December of 1987 an automobile manufacturer pleaded no contest to [#permalink] New post   29 Mar 2018, 17:43
2
Kudos
Expert Reply
Meaning issue..
The damages are NOT for cars itself but for DRIVING cars without odometer.
Hence FOR should be followed by something to do with driving car and not just car..
Eliminate A,B and C.
Even E has a meaning issue.
D clearly mentions that the civil damages were for having test driven cars without odometer.
D
avatar
MissionWin
Intern
Intern
Joined: 19 May 2018
Posts: 38
Own Kudos [?]: 2 [0]
Given Kudos: 1
Send PM
Re: In December of 1987 an automobile manufacturer pleaded no contest to [#permalink] New post   29 Jan 2019, 23:42
What this sentence is supposed to mean is that the automobile manufacturer agreed to pay damages for odometer tampering, specifically, for test driving cars that had their odometers disconnected. That is to say, for an action. Options A B and C do not refer to an action, they refer to the cars themselves. They all mean that the manufacturer agreed to pay damages for the cars, themselves. This is obviously a meaning error. So these three can be discarded. E can also be discarded for changing the meaning. ‘having cars’ implies that the manufacturer agreed to pay damages just for having cars that were test driven with their odometers disconnected. The only one that conveys the right meaning is option D.
User avatar
S
Bambi2021
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 13 Mar 2021
Posts: 338
Own Kudos [?]: 101 [0]
Given Kudos: 227
Send PM
Re: In December of 1987 an automobile manufacturer pleaded no contest to [#permalink] New post   28 Jun 2021, 23:51
If they paid civil damages to people that have bought these cars, then arent they paying these damages for each of the cars rather than for the act of test-driving.

With this reasoning I went with A.

Posted from my mobile device
User avatar
VerbalBot
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 17211
Own Kudos [?]: 848 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: In December of 1987 an automobile manufacturer pleaded no contest to [#permalink] New post   13 Dec 2023, 08:32
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
GMAT Club Bot
gmatclubot
Re: In December of 1987 an automobile manufacturer pleaded no contest to [#permalink]
13 Dec 2023, 08:32
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6917 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne
Main navigation
GMAT Resources
Partners
MBA Resources
www.gmac.com|www.mba.com | | GMAT Club Rules | Terms and Conditions