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

It is currently 11 Jul 2014, 02:34

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.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Last January, in an attempt to lower the number of traffic

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 20 Jul 2010
Posts: 19
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 37 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
Last January, in an attempt to lower the number of traffic [#permalink] New post 13 Oct 2010, 19:29
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  85% (hard)

Question Stats:

13% (02:32) correct 86% (01:22) wrong based on 461 sessions
Last January, in an attempt to lower the number of traffic fatalities, the state legislature passed its “Click It or Ticket” law. Under the new law, motorists can be pulled over and ticketed for not wearing their seat belts, even if an additional driving infraction has not been committed. Lawyers and citizens’ groups are already protesting the law, saying it unfairly infringes on the rights of the state’s drivers. Law enforcement groups counter these claims by stating that the new regulations will save countless additional lives. Which of the following inferences is best supported by the passage above?

• Prior to the “Click It or Ticket” law, motorists could not be stopped simply for not wearing a seat belt.
• The “Click It or Ticket” law violates current search and seizure laws.
• Laws similar to “Click It or Ticket” have effectively reduced traffic fatalities in a number of states.
• The previous seatbelt laws were ineffective in saving lives.
• Law enforcement groups, rather than citizens groups, should determine how to best ensure the safety of motorists.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 29 Sep 2008
Posts: 154
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 19 [0], given: 1

GMAT Tests User
Re: traffic fatalities [#permalink] New post 13 Oct 2010, 20:42
Prior to the “Click It or Ticket” law, motorists could not be stopped simply for not wearing a seat belt.Out of scope.we are not concerned with what happened prior to the law
• The “Click It or Ticket” law violates current search and seizure laws.-This information is nowhere mentioned.it's only given "it unfairly infringes on the rights of the state’s drivers"
• Laws similar to “Click It or Ticket” have effectively reduced traffic fatalities in a number of states.
• The previous seatbelt laws were ineffective in saving lives.Out of scope
• Law enforcement groups, rather than citizens groups, should determine how to best ensure the safety of motorists.the argument is not concerned with who should determine the safety
1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 15 Apr 2010
Posts: 176
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 63 [1] , given: 25

GMAT Tests User
Re: traffic fatalities [#permalink] New post 13 Oct 2010, 22:33
1
This post received
KUDOS
I had gone with A.

The passage states that 'Under the new law, motorists can be pulled over and ticketed for not wearing their seat belts, even if an additional driving infraction has not been committed.'
So we can infer that
'Prior to the “Click It or Ticket” law, motorists could not be stopped simply for not wearing a seat belt.'

(C)Laws similar to “Click It or Ticket” have effectively reduced traffic fatalities in a number of states.
Information about other states is not given in the passage. So I don't see how C can be the correct option.

Is there an OE?
_________________

Give [highlight]KUDOS [/highlight] if you like my post.

Always do things which make you feel ALIVE!!!

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 24 Aug 2010
Posts: 193
Location: Finland
Schools: Admitted: IESE($$),HEC, RSM,Esade
WE 1: 3.5 years international
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 59 [0], given: 18

GMAT Tests User
Re: traffic fatalities [#permalink] New post 13 Oct 2010, 22:54
A is the best answer. I was stuck between A and C.
B is New Information answer. We do not know anything about this from the passage.
D again is New Information.
E sounds like Shell Game answer.
C is out of scope..
A appears to be the best answer. Because the passage mentions the new law and what used to happen before this law was inacted.
Whats the OA on this one
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
Posts: 212
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 31 [0], given: 12

Re: traffic fatalities [#permalink] New post 14 Oct 2010, 00:10
definitely A,
• Prior to the “Click It or Ticket” law, motorists could not be stopped simply for not wearing a seat belt.
• The “Click It or Ticket” law violates current search and seizure laws. WE DON NOT KNOW ABOUT CURRENT LAW
• Laws similar to “Click It or Ticket” have effectively reduced traffic fatalities in a number of states. WE HAVE NO INFO ABOUT OTHER STATES
• The previous seat belt laws were ineffective in saving lives. WE HAVE NO INFO
• Law enforcement groups, rather than citizens groups, should determine how to best ensure the safety of motorists. OUT OF SCOPE
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
Posts: 212
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 31 [0], given: 12

Re: traffic fatalities [#permalink] New post 14 Oct 2010, 00:16
mrinal2100 wrote:
Prior to the “Click It or Ticket” law, motorists could not be stopped simply for not wearing a seat belt.Out of scope.we are not concerned with what happened prior to the law
• The “Click It or Ticket” law violates current search and seizure laws.-This information is nowhere mentioned.it's only given "it unfairly infringes on the rights of the state’s drivers"
• Laws similar to “Click It or Ticket” have effectively reduced traffic fatalities in a number of states.
• The previous seatbelt laws were ineffective in saving lives.Out of scope
• Law enforcement groups, rather than citizens groups, should determine how to best ensure the safety of motorists.the argument is not concerned with who should determine the safety


if previous law was able to stop them, there is no need to have a new one for the same purpose, A is very logical I guess.

C is out of scope, how do you know about other states.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 06 Aug 2010
Posts: 225
Location: Boston
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 75 [0], given: 5

Re: traffic fatalities [#permalink] New post 14 Oct 2010, 05:15
I agree with A, you definitely cannot infer C from this passage alone. I'm guessing the explanation points out the final sentence, "Law enforcement groups counter these claims by stating that the new regulations will save countless additional lives." But the passage doesn't state that they have any evidence whatsoever about this, and for all we know, this could be the first law of its kind enacted anywhere.

TC, are you sure C is the OA?
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 14 Oct 2010
Posts: 1
Followers: 0

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

Re: traffic fatalities [#permalink] New post 15 Oct 2010, 08:27
It shd be D.

A -> no where does it says that they couldn't be pull, but its just that now they can be TICKTED.

D-> New law because OLD was not effective enough
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 28 Apr 2010
Posts: 66
Schools: CBS
Followers: 1

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

Re: traffic fatalities [#permalink] New post 15 Oct 2010, 09:26
I agree. It must be A.

A - The best choice among the available choices. The protests by lawyers and citizens' groups (given in the evidence), suggests that no such law has been implemented before.

C - No information about other states has been given in the evidence. So it cannot be inferred that C is the right answer.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 11 Jul 2010
Posts: 229
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 38 [0], given: 20

GMAT ToolKit User GMAT Tests User
Re: traffic fatalities [#permalink] New post 15 Oct 2010, 09:49
it is A:

http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/cr- ... t3413.html

there is no way you can infer C from the question...
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 10 Nov 2010
Posts: 166
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 43 [0], given: 6

Re: traffic fatalities [#permalink] New post 31 Mar 2011, 10:31
Answer is indeed A.Please refer to the link
http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/cr- ... t3413.html
VP
VP
avatar
Status: There is always something new !!
Affiliations: PMI,QAI Global,eXampleCG
Joined: 08 May 2009
Posts: 1365
Followers: 10

Kudos [?]: 130 [0], given: 10

GMAT Tests User
Re: traffic fatalities [#permalink] New post 16 Jun 2011, 01:44
A it has to be,C simply strengthens the conclusion by bringing an additional premise.
_________________

Visit -- http://www.sustainable-sphere.com/
Promote Green Business,Sustainable Living and Green Earth !!

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Status: struggling with GMAT
Joined: 06 Dec 2012
Posts: 311
Location: Bangladesh
Concentration: Accounting
GMAT Date: 04-06-2013
GPA: 3.65
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 85 [0], given: 46

Last January, in an attempt to lower the number of traffic [#permalink] New post 23 Feb 2013, 13:21
Last January, in an attempt to lower the number of traffic fatalities, the state legislature passed its “Click It or Ticket” law. Under the new law, motorists can be pulled over and ticketed for not wearing their seat belts, even if an additional driving infraction has not been committed. Lawyers and citizens’ groups are already protesting the law, saying it unfairly infringes on the rights of the state’s drivers. Law enforcement groups counter these claims by stating that the new regulations will save countless additional lives.

Which of the following inferences is best supported by the passage above?
(A)Prior to the “Click It or Ticket” law, motorists could not be stopped simply for not wearing a seat belt.
(B)The “Click It or Ticket” law violates current search and seizure laws.
(C)Laws similar to “Click It or Ticket” have effectively reduced traffic fatalities in a number of states.
(D)The previous seatbelt laws were ineffective in saving lives.
(E)Law enforcement groups, rather than citizens groups, should determine how to best ensure the safety of motorists.
Need explanation....................
Expert Post
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 2281
Followers: 228

Kudos [?]: 1961 [0], given: 666

Re: Last January, in an attempt to lower the number [#permalink] New post 24 Feb 2013, 09:49
Expert's post
Last January, in an attempt to lower the number of traffic fatalities, the state legislature passed its “Click It or Ticket” law.

Ok this is a fact

Under the new law, motorists can be pulled over and ticketed for not wearing their seat belts, even if an additional driving infraction has not been committed.

it seems that the new law going to be most sever than before. also notice the meaning of this sentence, basically it says that the drivers could be ticketed even if they do not have previous infractions

Lawyers and citizens’ groups are already protesting the law, saying it unfairly infringes on the rights of the state’s drivers.

people already protest for the new law

Law enforcement groups counter these claims by stating that the new regulations will save countless additional lives.

The new law will save additional lives. This could say that the old law save lives but lower than the new law, but it still saves lives

Which of the following inferences is best supported by the passage above?

(A)Prior to the “Click It or Ticket” law, motorists could not be stopped simply for not wearing a seat belt.

This seems suddenly good because with the new law the drivers could be stopped for not wearing a seat belt even if they do not commit any infraction. Instead with the previous law they could be ticketed for bealt only in combination with another infraction


(B)The “Click It or Ticket” law violates current search and seizure laws.

I do not see anything in the stimulus that talks about seizure of something (I do not care about THAT something even if I know or not


(C)Laws similar to “Click It or Ticket” have effectively reduced traffic fatalities in a number of states.

I do not see anything about traffic fatalities maybe I can infer that if I do not wear the seat blet something could happen to me or my family but this is to far from "home" i.e. the stimulus

(D)The previous seatbelt laws were ineffective in saving lives.

This one is tricky. Because the previous law was ineffective in saving lives AT ALL. But we know from the last sentence that this is not true completely

(E)Law enforcement groups, rather than citizens groups, should determine how to best ensure the safety of motorists.

safety motorist is to far from the scope of the question.


A must be the answer and you infer it from the second phrase of the stimulus

regards
_________________

COLLECTION OF QUESTIONS
Quant: 1. Bunuel Signature Collection - The Next Generation 2. Bunuel Signature Collection ALL-IN-ONE WITH SOLUTIONS 3. Veritas Prep Blog PDF Version
Verbal:1. Best EXTERNAL resources to tackle the GMAT Verbal Section 2. e-GMAT's ALL CR topics-Consolidated 3. New Critical Reasoning question bank by carcass 4. Meaning/Clarity SC Question Bank by Carcass_Souvik 5. e-GMAT's ALL SC topics-Consolidated-2nd Edition

TOEFL iBT
Best resources to tackle each section of the TOEFL iBT

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 16 Dec 2011
Posts: 453
Followers: 9

Kudos [?]: 135 [0], given: 70

Re: Last January, in an attempt to lower the number of traffic [#permalink] New post 14 Apr 2013, 18:31
Similar topics on "Last January, in an attempt to lower the number of traffic" are merged.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 03 Dec 2012
Posts: 367
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 25 [0], given: 291

Re: Last January, in an attempt to lower the number of traffic [#permalink] New post 05 Nov 2013, 03:16
OA is A. A seems the best among the lot. It's still not convincing. But that's what the GMAT wants us to find.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Status: Persevering
Joined: 15 May 2013
Posts: 223
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, Leadership
GMAT Date: 08-02-2013
GPA: 3.7
WE: Consulting (Consulting)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 45 [0], given: 34

GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Last January, in an attempt to lower the number of traffic [#permalink] New post 09 Nov 2013, 05:11
mohnish104 wrote:
OA is A. A seems the best among the lot. It's still not convincing. But that's what the GMAT wants us to find.


IMO D,
Not sure about A primarily because it says that motorists were not stopped earlier. Well they could still be stopped for not wearing the seatbelt, its just that they were not ticketed.

After all the law is "Click It or Ticket".
_________________

--It's one thing to get defeated, but another to accept it.

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 03 Dec 2012
Posts: 367
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 25 [0], given: 291

Re: Last January, in an attempt to lower the number of traffic [#permalink] New post 09 Nov 2013, 20:23
ramannanda9 wrote:
mohnish104 wrote:
OA is A. A seems the best among the lot. It's still not convincing. But that's what the GMAT wants us to find.


IMO D,
Not sure about A primarily because it says that motorists were not stopped earlier. Well they could still be stopped for not wearing the seatbelt, its just that they were not ticketed.

After all the law is "Click It or Ticket".


How can we assume that the earlier laws were ineffective. The premise states that the new law will save 'countless additional lives'. The current law might still be saving a lot of lives. It might not be lets 50% successful or even 80% successful. May be the 50%/20% not saved is the countless numbers that the premise is talking about. Based on this we cannot say that they weren't effective. They may, they may not. There is no certain way of saying.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Status: Student
Joined: 26 Aug 2013
Posts: 261
Location: France
Concentration: Finance, General Management
GMAT 1: 650 Q47 V32
GPA: 3.44
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 27 [0], given: 397

Re: Last January, in an attempt to lower the number of traffic [#permalink] New post 10 Nov 2013, 09:19
harshsingla wrote:
Last January, in an attempt to lower the number of traffic fatalities, the state legislature passed its “Click It or Ticket” law. Under the new law, motorists can be pulled over and ticketed for not wearing their seat belts, even if an additional driving infraction has not been committed. Lawyers and citizens’ groups are already protesting the law, saying it unfairly infringes on the rights of the state’s drivers. Law enforcement groups counter these claims by stating that the new regulations will save countless additional lives. Which of the following inferences is best supported by the passage above?

• Prior to the “Click It or Ticket” law, motorists could not be stopped simply for not wearing a seat belt.
• The “Click It or Ticket” law violates current search and seizure laws.
• Laws similar to “Click It or Ticket” have effectively reduced traffic fatalities in a number of states.
• The previous seatbelt laws were ineffective in saving lives.
• Law enforcement groups, rather than citizens groups, should determine how to best ensure the safety of motorists.


Was quite surprise with the OA, "in a number of states" is out of scope and wordy (it could be in only 60%...)

D and E are for sure out

B is not correct because "current search and seizure laws" are clearly not stated in the passage...

Leaving with A...

Some advice?
_________________

Think outside the box

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 14 Nov 2013
Posts: 14
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 27

Re: Last January, in an attempt to lower the number of traffic [#permalink] New post 08 Apr 2014, 13:39
I am not sure how they do it but please change the OA to A as A is the correct answer. It gets frustrating when incorrect OA's are posted.
Admin please do the needful . Thanks
Re: Last January, in an attempt to lower the number of traffic   [#permalink] 08 Apr 2014, 13:39
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
2 Experts publish their posts in the topic In attempting to solve the problems caused by a lowering of TooLong150 4 28 Mar 2014, 02:14
5 Experts publish their posts in the topic Last year, the number of traffic violations per capita guerrero25 1 27 Jan 2014, 11:18
Last January, in an attempt to lower the number of traffic mun23 0 14 Apr 2013, 18:31
3 Experts publish their posts in the topic In the last three years, the number of traffic fatalities bschool83 20 30 Aug 2011, 22:27
In January there was a large drop in the number of new rahulraao 4 18 Sep 2005, 16:48
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Last January, in an attempt to lower the number of traffic

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 24 posts ] 



GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.