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.
It appears that you are browsing the GMAT Club forum unregistered!
Signing up is free, quick, and confidential.
Join other 500,000 members and get the full benefits of GMAT Club
Registration gives you:
Tests
Take 11 tests and quizzes from GMAT Club and leading GMAT prep companies such as Manhattan GMAT,
Knewton, and others. All are free for GMAT Club members.
Applicant Stats
View detailed applicant stats such as GPA, GMAT score, work experience, location, application
status, and more
Books/Downloads
Download thousands of study notes,
question collections, GMAT Club’s
Grammar and Math books.
All are free!
Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Budget constraints have made police officials consider reassigning [#permalink]
Show Tags
21 Aug 2015, 07:22
3
This post received KUDOS
18
This post was BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E
Difficulty:
55% (hard)
Question Stats:
67% (01:39) correct
33% (02:00) wrong based on 845 sessions
HideShow timer Statistics
Budget constraints have made police officials consider reassigning a considerable number of officers from traffic enforcement to work on higher-priority, serious crimes. Reducing traffic enforcement for this reason would be counterproductive, however, in light of the tendency of criminals to use cars when engaged in the commission of serious crimes. An officer stopping a car for a traffic violation can make a search that turns up evidence of serious crime.
Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument given?
A An officer who stops a car containing evidence of the commission of a serious crime risks a violent confrontation, even if the vehicle was stopped only for a traffic violation. B When the public becomes aware that traffic enforcement has lessened, it typically becomes lax in obeying traffic rules. C Those willing to break the law to commit serious crimes are often in committing such crimes unwilling to observe what they regard as the lesser constraints of traffic law. D The offenders committing serious crimes who would be caught because of traffic violations are not the same group of individuals as those who would be caught if the arresting officers were reassigned from traffic enforcement. E The great majority of persons who are stopped by officers for traffic violations are not guilty of any serious crimes.
Re: Budget constraints have made police officials consider reassigning [#permalink]
Show Tags
07 Sep 2015, 09:06
JarvisR wrote:
Budget constraints have made police officials consider reassigning a considerable number of officers from traffic enforcement to work on higher-priority, serious crimes. Reducing traffic enforcement for this reason would be counterproductive, however, in light of the tendency of criminals to use cars when engaged in the commission of serious crimes. An officer stopping a car for a traffic violation can make a search that turns up evidence of serious crime.
Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument given?
A An officer who stops a car containing evidence of the commission of a serious crime risks a violent confrontation, even if the vehicle was stopped only for a traffic violation. B When the public becomes aware that traffic enforcement has lessened, it typically becomes lax in obeying traffic rules. C Those willing to break the law to commit serious crimes are often in committing such crimes unwilling to observe what they regard as the lesser constraints of traffic law. D The offenders committing serious crimes who would be caught because of traffic violations are not the same group of individuals as those who would be caught if the arresting officers were reassigned from traffic enforcement. E The great majority of persons who are stopped by officers for traffic violations are not guilty of any serious crimes.
Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument given?
A. A single incident can't be taken as an example B. We have to focus, here we are dealing with criminals, not public! C. Strengthens the argument given D. It distracts by saying there are two types of criminals caught, followed by description of their crimes. E. Again far away from the topic, mostly deals with public.
Re: Budget constraints have made police officials consider reassigning [#permalink]
Show Tags
29 May 2016, 16:03
can someone explain why D is wrong? seems like the answer is saying that criminals would be caught in their cars so don't get rid of traffic cops, which strengthens it.
I understand why C strengthens it too, but I thought D was a stronger strengthener.
First , as for any CR problem lets break down the problem :
Conclusion : Shifting of Traffic officers to work on serious crimes would not prove fruitful. Premise : Police force needs more officers to work on serious crimes and police officials from Traffic enforcement are being shifted for this cause. Why -> because traffic officials can catch Traffic violators and search for evidence of serious crimes in the car.
One should always pre-think some sort of answer before moving on to the answer choices. In this case what can one pre-think ?? Pre-thinking - Evidence that shows that traffic police officers actually catch criminals who have committed serious crimes.
A An officer who stops a car containing evidence of the commission of a serious crime risks a violent confrontation, even if the vehicle was stopped only for a traffic violation. -> This if any weakens our conclusion as if traffic police officers risk violent confrontation then they actually would actually be discouraged to search vehicles. B When the public becomes aware that traffic enforcement has lessened, it typically becomes lax in obeying traffic rules. -> This option choice does not affect our conclusion. It does not talk about serious crimes in any way. C Those willing to break the law to commit serious crimes are often in committing such crimes unwilling to observe what they regard as the lesser constraints of traffic law. -> Correct -> Because this actually gives evidence that Traffic police officials would actually search these cars which have serious crime offenders. D The offenders committing serious crimes who would be caught because of traffic violations are not the same group of individuals as those who would be caught if the arresting officers were reassigned from traffic enforcement. -> The question that we need to answer is that whether reassigning Traffic police officers to crime department would actually increase or decrease the number of criminals caught. This option choice does not help answer that in any way and hence is incorrect. E The great majority of persons who are stopped by officers for traffic violations are not guilty of any serious crimes. -> This option choice again does not help answer the conclusion in any way as explained in option choice D.
can someone explain why D is wrong? seems like the answer is saying that criminals would be caught in their cars so don't get rid of traffic cops, which strengthens it.
I understand why C strengthens it too, but I thought D was a stronger strengthener.
We have to strengthen the fact that transferring police officials from Traffic police to work on serious crimes will not be helpful in catching more criminals who have committed serious crimes. Now option choice D talks about two different set of people does not help increase our belief that if the officers are transferred then would it result it catching more or fewer serious crime offenders. This is the reason this answer choice is incorrect.
Re: Budget constraints have made police officials consider reassigning [#permalink]
Show Tags
31 May 2016, 06:27
guys, I still don't get why choice D is wrong. Doen't the answer imply that more offenders of serious crimes will be caught if police officials will not be reassigned? Can someone please help me out,this question is pretty frustrating.
_________________
"I fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks once, but I fear the man who has practiced one kick 10,000 times." Bruce Lee
"I hated every minute of training, but I said, "Don’t quit. Suffer now and live the rest of your life as a champion."" Muhammad Ali
Re: Budget constraints have made police officials consider reassigning [#permalink]
Show Tags
31 May 2016, 11:32
TeamGMATIFY wrote:
nycgirl212 wrote:
can someone explain why D is wrong? seems like the answer is saying that criminals would be caught in their cars so don't get rid of traffic cops, which strengthens it.
I understand why C strengthens it too, but I thought D was a stronger strengthener.
We have to strengthen the fact that transferring police officials from Traffic police to work on serious crimes will not be helpful in catching more criminals who have committed serious crimes. Now option choice D talks about two different set of people does not help increase our belief that if the officers are transferred then would it result it catching more or fewer serious crime offenders. This is the reason this answer choice is incorrect.
Hope this helps !!!
but doesn't D say that since the group of serious criminals is different between the ones that are driving and not driving, clearly eliminating traffic cops would create a situation where those serious criminals that are driving are not caught - thus, there would be less criminals caught BECAUSE the traffic cops were reassigned....
Re: Budget constraints have made police officials consider reassigning [#permalink]
Show Tags
10 Sep 2016, 07:41
nycgirl212 wrote:
TeamGMATIFY wrote:
nycgirl212 wrote:
can someone explain why D is wrong? seems like the answer is saying that criminals would be caught in their cars so don't get rid of traffic cops, which strengthens it.
I understand why C strengthens it too, but I thought D was a stronger strengthener.
We have to strengthen the fact that transferring police officials from Traffic police to work on serious crimes will not be helpful in catching more criminals who have committed serious crimes. Now option choice D talks about two different set of people does not help increase our belief that if the officers are transferred then would it result it catching more or fewer serious crime offenders. This is the reason this answer choice is incorrect.
Hope this helps !!!
but doesn't D say that since the group of serious criminals is different between the ones that are driving and not driving, clearly eliminating traffic cops would create a situation where those serious criminals that are driving are not caught - thus, there would be less criminals caught BECAUSE the traffic cops were reassigned....
The flaw in your reasoning is this.. You're not considering the fact that the officers reassigned could catch more number of criminals than the number of criminals who would go free (if the officers are reassigned). Therefore we can not definitely say 'there would be less criminals caught BECAUSE the traffic cops were reassigned'.
_________________
Best GMAT Resources downloads- http://gmatclub.com/forum/collection-of-the-best-gmat-resources-167295.html#p1329720
Re: Budget constraints have made police officials consider reassigning [#permalink]
Show Tags
16 Aug 2017, 22:33
C is the correct choice - This suggests that people committing serious crimes often commit traffic violations as well, increasing the likelihood that traffic enforcement officers will stop to search their cars and find evidence of those crimes.
_________________
2017-2018 MBA Deadlines
Threadmaster for B-school Discussions Class of 2019: Mannheim Business School Class 0f 2020: HHL Leipzig
Budget constraints have made police officials consider reassigning [#permalink]
Show Tags
20 Sep 2017, 16:49
JarvisR wrote:
Budget constraints have made police officials consider reassigning a considerable number of officers from traffic enforcement to work on higher-priority, serious crimes. Reducing traffic enforcement for this reason would be counterproductive, however, in light of the tendency of criminals to use cars when engaged in the commission of serious crimes. An officer stopping a car for a traffic violation can make a search that turns up evidence of serious crime.
Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument given?
A An officer who stops a car containing evidence of the commission of a serious crime risks a violent confrontation, even if the vehicle was stopped only for a traffic violation. B When the public becomes aware that traffic enforcement has lessened, it typically becomes lax in obeying traffic rules. C Those willing to break the law to commit serious crimes are often in committing such crimes unwilling to observe what they regard as the lesser constraints of traffic law. D The offenders committing serious crimes who would be caught because of traffic violations are not the same group of individuals as those who would be caught if the arresting officers were reassigned from traffic enforcement. E The great majority of persons who are stopped by officers for traffic violations are not guilty of any serious crimes.
A An officer who stops a car containing evidence of the commission of a serious crime risks a violent confrontation, even if the vehicle was stopped only for a traffic violation. Incorrect - Shell game answer B When the public becomes aware that traffic enforcement has lessened, it typically becomes lax in obeying traffic rules. Incorrect - Out of scope C Those willing to break the law to commit serious crimes are often in committing such crimes unwilling to observe what they regard as the lesser constraints of traffic law. Correct - When cause (crime) occurs, effect (traffic rule violation) occurs D The offenders committing serious crimes who would be caught because of traffic violations are not the same group of individuals as those who would be caught if the arresting officers were reassigned from traffic enforcement. Incorrect - Opposite Ans. E The great majority of persons who are stopped by officers for traffic violations are not guilty of any serious crimes. Incorrect - Out of scope
Version 8.1 of the WordPress for Android app is now available, with some great enhancements to publishing: background media uploading. Adding images to a post or page? Now...
Post today is short and sweet for my MBA batchmates! We survived Foundations term, and tomorrow's the start of our Term 1! I'm sharing my pre-MBA notes...
“Keep your head down, and work hard. Don’t attract any attention. You should be grateful to be here.” Why do we keep quiet? Being an immigrant is a constant...
67% (01:39) correct
