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

 It is currently 27 Jul 2015, 18:05

### 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 manufacturer pleaded no

Author Message
TAGS:
Manager
Joined: 15 Nov 2006
Posts: 224
Location: Ohio
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 21 [0], given: 0

In December of 1987 an automobile manufacturer pleaded no [#permalink]  10 Apr 2007, 14:34
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

38% (02:11) correct 62% (01:19) wrong based on 65 sessions
374. 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 VP Joined: 03 Apr 2007 Posts: 1376 Followers: 3 Kudos [?]: 298 [0], given: 10 Re: SC-Odometers [#permalink] 10 Apr 2007, 18:40 nitinneha wrote: 374. 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

D
A,B,C,E->eliminated because damaged are paid for someaction/violation
Manager
Joined: 15 Nov 2006
Posts: 224
Location: Ohio
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 21 [0], given: 0

OA is D. Thanks guys
Intern
Joined: 28 Apr 2010
Posts: 1
Followers: 0

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

Re: SC-Odometers [#permalink]  23 May 2010, 10:14
hey guys

could you please explain what's wrong with E?
SVP
Joined: 17 Feb 2010
Posts: 1560
Followers: 13

Kudos [?]: 303 [0], given: 6

Re: SC-Odometers [#permalink]  25 May 2010, 09:26
E is wrong because it conveys that the automobile manufacturer was asked to pay damages for having cars....which is incorrect.

the manufacturer was not asked to pay damages for cars but for some action/violation (doing test driving on cars with their odometers disconnected)

(D) having test-driven cars with their odometers disconnected
(E) having cars that were test-driven with disconnected odometers
Manager
Joined: 20 Nov 2009
Posts: 168
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 69 [0], given: 64

Re: SC-Odometers [#permalink]  22 Jul 2010, 07:51
The charges were for something (for having cars). If you say for cars, it doesn't relate that he has done something.
_________________

But there’s something in me that just keeps going on. I think it has something to do with tomorrow, that there is always one, and that everything can change when it comes.
http://aimingformba.blogspot.com

Manager
Joined: 20 Nov 2009
Posts: 168
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 69 [0], given: 64

Re: SC-Odometers [#permalink]  22 Jul 2010, 10:18
cars that it had test-driven with their disconnected odometers. In this sentence we don't know if their refer to cars or manufacturers. Therefore, B should be eliminated.
_________________

But there’s something in me that just keeps going on. I think it has something to do with tomorrow, that there is always one, and that everything can change when it comes.
http://aimingformba.blogspot.com

SVP
Joined: 16 Jul 2009
Posts: 1634
Schools: CBS
WE 1: 4 years (Consulting)
Followers: 37

Kudos [?]: 471 [0], given: 2

Re: SC-Odometers [#permalink]  16 Oct 2010, 06:51
aiming4mba wrote:
The charges were for something (for having cars). If you say for cars, it doesn't relate that he has done something.

But A does not say for cars...it says "for cars that were..." , so there is an action for which the charges were applied.

Could anybody explain a bit more whats wrong with A?
Thanks.
_________________

The sky is the limit
800 is the limit

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Manager
Joined: 24 Aug 2010
Posts: 193
Location: Finland
Schools: Admitted: IESE(),HEC, RSM,Esade
WE 1: 3.5 years international
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 73 [0], given: 18

Re: SC-Odometers [#permalink]  16 Oct 2010, 07:56
gauravnagpal wrote:
seekmba wrote:
E is wrong because it conveys that the automobile manufacturer was asked to pay damages for having cars....which is incorrect.

the manufacturer was not asked to pay damages for cars but for some action/violation (doing test driving on cars with their odometers disconnected)

(D) having test-driven cars with their odometers disconnected
(E) having cars that were test-driven with disconnected odometers

why is B wrong!!

Another reason why B is wrong is because of meaning error.
You don't say "disconnected odometers" rather "odometers disconnected". There is a subtle but a clear difference between the two and to preserve the intended meaning of the author, we reject B. For the same reason, we reject E.
SVP
Joined: 16 Jul 2009
Posts: 1634
Schools: CBS
WE 1: 4 years (Consulting)
Followers: 37

Kudos [?]: 471 [0], given: 2

Re: SC-Odometers [#permalink]  14 Nov 2010, 10:10
Nobody is going to clarify this?

noboru wrote:
aiming4mba wrote:
The charges were for something (for having cars). If you say for cars, it doesn't relate that he has done something.

But A does not say for cars...it says "for cars that were..." , so there is an action for which the charges were applied.

Could anybody explain a bit more whats wrong with A?
Thanks.

_________________

The sky is the limit
800 is the limit

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Senior Manager
Status: Can't give up
Joined: 20 Dec 2009
Posts: 320
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 26 [0], given: 35

Re: SC-Odometers [#permalink]  14 Nov 2010, 21:25
noboru - http://www.beatthegmat.com/automobile-m ... ent=Boston

The best I can help. I went for A too..now looking around why it is wrong.
Now reading the sentence over and over again makes me feel that A changes the meaning of the sentence.

One guy has very well said, prep+noun+participle if a BIG NO in GMAT (We all know that by now), this is in A.
SVP
Joined: 16 Jul 2009
Posts: 1634
Schools: CBS
WE 1: 4 years (Consulting)
Followers: 37

Kudos [?]: 471 [0], given: 2

Re: SC-Odometers [#permalink]  15 Nov 2010, 12:13
amma4u wrote:
noboru - http://www.beatthegmat.com/automobile-m ... ent=Boston

The best I can help. I went for A too..now looking around why it is wrong.
Now reading the sentence over and over again makes me feel that A changes the meaning of the sentence.

One guy has very well said, prep+noun+participle if a BIG NO in GMAT (We all know that by now), this is in A.

Thanks, but that doesnt solve my doubt.

Both A and D have "with their odometers disconnected", so why do you say that it is only wrong in A? and BTW, that would be "prep pron noun part", which is different from what you are stating.

The suposed explanation for choosing D rather than A is that you need an action for which the manufacter had to pay damages, and D says "for having cars bla bla bla" and that is an action. In A it says "for cars..." and that is not an action. However, my point is that A says "for cars that were bla bla bla" and that is also an action for which the manufacturer could have had to pay.

Can anybody clarify?
Thanks.
_________________

The sky is the limit
800 is the limit

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Intern
Joined: 17 Aug 2009
Posts: 41
Location: United States
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 740 Q49 V42
GPA: 3.29
WE: Engineering (Consulting)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 4

Re: SC-Odometers [#permalink]  15 Nov 2010, 15:42
noboru wrote:
amma4u wrote:
noboru - http://www.beatthegmat.com/automobile-m ... ent=Boston

The best I can help. I went for A too..now looking around why it is wrong.
Now reading the sentence over and over again makes me feel that A changes the meaning of the sentence.

One guy has very well said, prep+noun+participle if a BIG NO in GMAT (We all know that by now), this is in A.

Thanks, but that doesnt solve my doubt.

Both A and D have "with their odometers disconnected", so why do you say that it is only wrong in A? and BTW, that would be "prep pron noun part", which is different from what you are stating.

The suposed explanation for choosing D rather than A is that you need an action for which the manufacter had to pay damages, and D says "for having cars bla bla bla" and that is an action. In A it says "for cars..." and that is not an action. However, my point is that A says "for cars that were bla bla bla" and that is also an action for which the manufacturer could have had to pay.

Can anybody clarify?
Thanks.

noboru, I originally went for option A as well, but thinking about it a little more changed my thought. Option A is actually says "pay fines for cars with their..." whereas option D says "pay fines for having cars with their..."

Option A is ambiguous because it could seem like the manufacturer is paying a fine for civil damage for any car that was test driven with ....

I hope I'm clear
Manager
Joined: 16 Jul 2010
Posts: 161
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 0

Re: SC-Odometers [#permalink]  16 Nov 2010, 03:02
noboru wrote:
amma4u wrote:
noboru - http://www.beatthegmat.com/automobile-m ... ent=Boston

The best I can help. I went for A too..now looking around why it is wrong.
Now reading the sentence over and over again makes me feel that A changes the meaning of the sentence.

One guy has very well said, prep+noun+participle if a BIG NO in GMAT (We all know that by now), this is in A.

Thanks, but that doesnt solve my doubt.

Both A and D have "with their odometers disconnected", so why do you say that it is only wrong in A? and BTW, that would be "prep pron noun part", which is different from what you are stating.

The suposed explanation for choosing D rather than A is that you need an action for which the manufacter had to pay damages, and D says "for having cars bla bla bla" and that is an action. In A it says "for cars..." and that is not an action. However, my point is that A says "for cars that were bla bla bla" and that is also an action for which the manufacturer could have had to pay.

Can anybody clarify?
Thanks.

You're right. You do need an action for which the manufacturer had to pay. So the answer is D.
Manager
Joined: 16 Jul 2010
Posts: 161
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 0

Re: SC-Odometers [#permalink]  16 Nov 2010, 03:07
*The manufacturer was made to pay not for the cars but for driving the cars in an illegal manner.
SVP
Joined: 16 Jul 2009
Posts: 1634
Schools: CBS
WE 1: 4 years (Consulting)
Followers: 37

Kudos [?]: 471 [0], given: 2

Re: SC-Odometers [#permalink]  17 Nov 2010, 12:50
Werewolf wrote:
*The manufacturer was made to pay not for the cars but for driving the cars in an illegal manner.

Of course the manufacturer was not made to pay for the cars, but for cars that were bla bla bla

I think that the point here is not that but that A can be interpreted as if those cars could be of OTHER MANUFACTURER!

Thoughts on that?
_________________

The sky is the limit
800 is the limit

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Manager
Joined: 16 Jul 2010
Posts: 161
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 0

Re: SC-Odometers [#permalink]  17 Nov 2010, 19:47
noboru wrote:
Werewolf wrote:
*The manufacturer was made to pay not for the cars but for driving the cars in an illegal manner.

Of course the manufacturer was not made to pay for the cars, but for cars that were bla bla bla

I think that the point here is not that but that A can be interpreted as if those cars could be of OTHER MANUFACTURER!

Thoughts on that?

I'm lousy at explaining things but my point was that the manufacturer was being punished for performing the action of driving those cars in an illegal manner. A implies that the manufacturer was punished for some specific cars (cars that were test-driven with their odometers disconnected) and not for other cars.

I don't think ownership of the car is an issue here. Every answer choice fails to explicitly mention the owners of the cars except an obviously wrong choice C (its cars).
Manager
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
Posts: 147
Location: United Kingdom
Concentration: Strategy, Technology
GMAT 1: 500 Q45 V16
WE: Consulting (Computer Software)
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 10

Re: SC-Odometers [#permalink]  30 Dec 2010, 13:09
I went with E. I think D changes the meaning of the actual sentence.
Manager
Joined: 19 Dec 2010
Posts: 145
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 21 [0], given: 12

Re: SC-Odometers [#permalink]  01 Apr 2011, 02:14
D because it refers to what teh damages were paid for...correctly
Intern
Joined: 07 Nov 2011
Posts: 31
Followers: 0

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

Re: In December of 1987 an automobile manufacturer pleaded no [#permalink]  28 Dec 2011, 01:04
any forum moderator ...pls clarify the doubt ....what is wrong with a) ...???
Re: In December of 1987 an automobile manufacturer pleaded no   [#permalink] 28 Dec 2011, 01:04
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