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

 It is currently 30 Apr 2016, 08:56

### 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

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

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 20 Jul 2010
Posts: 19
Followers: 1

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

Last January, in an attempt to lower the number of traffic [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Oct 2010, 20:29
3
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

31% (02:15) correct 69% (01:22) wrong based on 926 sessions

### HideShow timer Statictics

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

Last edited by PiyushK on 14 Aug 2014, 11:43, edited 1 time in total.
OA is edited C to A
Manager
Joined: 29 Sep 2008
Posts: 147
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 72 [0], given: 1

Re: Last January, in an attempt to lower the number of traffic [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Oct 2010, 21:42
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
Manager
Joined: 15 Apr 2010
Posts: 176
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 79 [1] , given: 25

Re: Last January, in an attempt to lower the number of traffic [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Oct 2010, 23:33
1
KUDOS

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

Kudos [?]: 81 [0], given: 18

Re: Last January, in an attempt to lower the number of traffic [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Oct 2010, 23:54
A is the best answer. I was stuck between A and C.
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
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
Posts: 212
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 82 [0], given: 13

Re: Last January, in an attempt to lower the number of traffic [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Oct 2010, 01:10
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
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
Posts: 212
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 82 [0], given: 13

Re: Last January, in an attempt to lower the number of traffic [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Oct 2010, 01:16
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
Joined: 06 Aug 2010
Posts: 225
Location: Boston
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 139 [0], given: 5

Re: Last January, in an attempt to lower the number of traffic [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Oct 2010, 06:15
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
Joined: 14 Oct 2010
Posts: 1
Followers: 0

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

Re: Last January, in an attempt to lower the number of traffic [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Oct 2010, 09:27
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
Joined: 28 Apr 2010
Posts: 66
Schools: CBS
Followers: 1

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

Re: Last January, in an attempt to lower the number of traffic [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Oct 2010, 10:26
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
Joined: 11 Jul 2010
Posts: 227
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 67 [0], given: 20

Re: Last January, in an attempt to lower the number of traffic [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Oct 2010, 10:49
it is A:

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

there is no way you can infer C from the question...
Manager
Joined: 10 Nov 2010
Posts: 164
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 192 [0], given: 6

Re: Last January, in an attempt to lower the number of traffic [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Mar 2011, 11:31
http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/cr- ... t3413.html
VP
Status: There is always something new !!
Affiliations: PMI,QAI Global,eXampleCG
Joined: 08 May 2009
Posts: 1353
Followers: 16

Kudos [?]: 201 [0], given: 10

Re: Last January, in an attempt to lower the number of traffic [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Jun 2011, 02:44
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 !!

Manager
Status: struggling with GMAT
Joined: 06 Dec 2012
Posts: 228
Concentration: Accounting
GMAT Date: 04-06-2013
GPA: 3.65
Followers: 13

Kudos [?]: 252 [0], given: 46

Re: Last January, in an attempt to lower the number of traffic [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Feb 2013, 14:21
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....................
Moderator
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 2869
Followers: 636

Kudos [?]: 5047 [1] , given: 870

Re: Last January, in an attempt to lower the number of traffic [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Feb 2013, 10:49
1
KUDOS
Expert's post
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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
_________________
Senior Manager
Joined: 16 Dec 2011
Posts: 452
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 177 [0], given: 70

Re: Last January, in an attempt to lower the number of traffic [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Apr 2013, 19:31
Similar topics on "Last January, in an attempt to lower the number of traffic" are merged.
Senior Manager
Joined: 03 Dec 2012
Posts: 367
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 85 [0], given: 291

Re: Last January, in an attempt to lower the number of traffic [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Nov 2013, 04:16
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
Status: Persevering
Joined: 15 May 2013
Posts: 225
Location: India
GMAT Date: 08-02-2013
GPA: 3.7
WE: Consulting (Consulting)
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 74 [0], given: 34

Re: Last January, in an attempt to lower the number of traffic [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Nov 2013, 06:11
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
Joined: 03 Dec 2012
Posts: 367
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 85 [0], given: 291

Re: Last January, in an attempt to lower the number of traffic [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Nov 2013, 21:23
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
Status: Student
Joined: 26 Aug 2013
Posts: 266
Location: France
Concentration: Finance, General Management
GMAT 1: 650 Q47 V32
GPA: 3.44
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 51 [0], given: 401

Re: Last January, in an attempt to lower the number of traffic [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Nov 2013, 10:19
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...

_________________

Think outside the box

Intern
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]

### Show Tags

08 Apr 2014, 14:39
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.
Re: Last January, in an attempt to lower the number of traffic   [#permalink] 08 Apr 2014, 14:39

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 26 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
1 Last January, in an attempt to lower the 5 21 Nov 2014, 13:07
4 Last June, Endsville installed highway traffic cameras, in t 11 16 Aug 2014, 11:15
4 Last June, Endsville installed highway traffic cameras, in t 13 23 Jul 2014, 20:00
11 Last year, the number of traffic violations per capita 3 27 Jan 2014, 12:18
Last January, in an attempt to lower the number of traffic 0 14 Apr 2013, 19:31
Display posts from previous: Sort by