GMAT Changed on April 16th - Read about the latest changes here

 It is currently 24 Apr 2018, 13:59

### 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

# Budget constraints have made police officials consider reassigning

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Director
Joined: 05 Nov 2012
Posts: 510
Concentration: Technology, Other

### Show Tags

21 Aug 2015, 07:22
5
KUDOS
27
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

55% (hard)

Question Stats:

67% (01:39) correct 33% (02:00) wrong based on 1349 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.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

--------------------------------------------------------
Regards

Intern
Joined: 07 Jul 2015
Posts: 11

### Show Tags

07 Sep 2015, 09:06
3
KUDOS
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.
Manager
Joined: 24 Jul 2011
Posts: 211
Location: India
GMAT 1: 570 Q50 V19
GMAT 2: 650 Q49 V28
GMAT 3: 690 Q50 V34
WE: Information Technology (Investment Banking)

### Show Tags

11 Sep 2015, 00:52
What's wrong with D?

If the Traffic Police Officers are able to catch other bunch of criminals then the number of criminal caught will increase.
_________________

Middle of nowhere!

Intern
Joined: 15 Nov 2015
Posts: 46

### Show Tags

14 Apr 2016, 09:05
1
KUDOS
Conclusion: Reducing Traffic enforcement is counter productive.
Premise: Criminals tend to use cars when committing serious crimes.

Assumption: Criminals using cars can be quickly detected.

Something which supports this assumption will strengthen the arguments.
Manager
Joined: 22 Sep 2015
Posts: 108

### 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.
Manager
Joined: 06 Jun 2014
Posts: 92
Location: United States
Concentration: Finance, General Management
GMAT 1: 450 Q27 V21
GPA: 3.47

### Show Tags

29 May 2016, 18:28
1
KUDOS
Here is the Official explanation.
Attachments

budget constraints.png [ 143.76 KiB | Viewed 10103 times ]

_________________

1) Kaplanprep 450 Q27 V21
2) Manhattan 530 Q35 V28
3) GmatPrep 450 Q33, V19
4) Veritas 460 Q31, V23
5) Veritas 440 Q 30, V21
6) Veritas 500 Q34, V 25
7) Gmat 420 Q27, V23
8) Veritas 520 Q36, V26 2/2
9) Veritas 540 Q37, V28 4/19
10)Manhattan 560 Q40, V28 4/28

Senior Manager
Joined: 20 Aug 2015
Posts: 392
Location: India
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V44

### Show Tags

30 May 2016, 02:39
3
KUDOS
Expert's post
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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.

Hope this helps !!!!
Senior Manager
Joined: 20 Aug 2015
Posts: 392
Location: India
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V44

### Show Tags

30 May 2016, 02:47
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 !!!
Intern
Joined: 11 Apr 2015
Posts: 35
Location: Germany
Concentration: General Management, Entrepreneurship
GPA: 3.1
WE: Project Management (Energy and Utilities)

### 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

Manager
Joined: 22 Sep 2015
Posts: 108

### 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....
Intern
Joined: 20 Jan 2013
Posts: 45
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 740 Q49 V41
GPA: 3.42

### 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'.
_________________

http://gmatclub.com/forum/collection-of-the-best-gmat-resources-167295.html#p1329720

May we all emerge victorious

Manager
Joined: 03 Jan 2017
Posts: 184

### Show Tags

13 Mar 2017, 15:21
We need to find an answer supporting the claim that traffic officers do catch some "described" serious crimes
Status: It's now or never
Joined: 10 Feb 2017
Posts: 261
Location: India
GMAT 1: 650 Q40 V39
GPA: 3
WE: Consulting (Consulting)

### 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.
_________________

Class of 2019: Mannheim Business School
Class 0f 2020: HHL Leipzig

Manager
Joined: 28 Jun 2015
Posts: 90
Location: Australia

### 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
Intern
Joined: 01 Dec 2016
Posts: 4

### Show Tags

16 Dec 2017, 05:19
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.

Reducing traffic enforcement to focus on solving serious crimes would be counterproductive because:-
Thinking: We need to find out why is it not a good idea to move Police Officers from Traffic Dept to Serious Crimes.
Option: Number of offenders committing serious crimes caught would reduce as a result of above mentioned action
Evidence1: Criminals engaging in SC tend to use Cars
Evidence2: Officers which stop cars can find evidence related to SC

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.
Irrelevant

B When the public becomes aware that traffic enforcement has lessened, it typically becomes lax in obeying traffic rules.
Irrelevant

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.
Strengthens Evidence 1

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.
2 groups
g1: SC Offenders caught due to traffic violations
g2: SC Offenders caught due to increased capacity of serious crimes unit
G2 does not include those caught due to traffic violations. But this option does not tell us whether absolute number of offenders committing serious crimes reduces or increases.

E The great majority of persons who are stopped by officers for traffic violations are not guilty of any serious crimes.
Different target group
Intern
Joined: 14 Aug 2017
Posts: 39

### Show Tags

27 Dec 2017, 00:50
mike - Could you please explain option C :unwilling to observe what they regard as the lesser constraints of traffic law:
Intern
Joined: 11 Sep 2017
Posts: 20

### Show Tags

24 Jan 2018, 08:46
siddyj94 wrote:
mike - Could you please explain option C :unwilling to observe what they regard as the lesser constraints of traffic law:

Hi siddy,

I'll give it a try

I broke down the sentence (option C) into three parts-

1. Those willing to break the law to commit serious crimes = People committing serious crimes
2. are often in committing such crimes = when they are committing these serious crimes
3. unwilling to observe what they regard as the lesser constraints of traffic law = they do not observe the traffic laws (so they break traffic laws too) and think that breaking traffic laws is a lesser limiting factor than committing serious crimes.

Combining the meaning of the three parts- When people commit serious crimes, they also break traffic laws and they think that breaking traffic laws is a lesser constraint than committing serious crimes.

I hope this helps.

Aiena.
Manager
Joined: 15 Nov 2016
Posts: 118

### Show Tags

16 Apr 2018, 05:51
Conclusion: Reducing the traffic enforcement is not going to help because criminals often use cars when engaged in the commission of serious crimes and the presence of the officials can make a significant difference.

Any idea that might go against the notion of the conclusion can be eliminated. Also, we have to protect the assumption that this argument has. The assumption is that the traffic police is capable of identifying those criminals and is willing to take action.

With this idea A can be eliminated because if the officer risks the violent confrontation he may be discouraged to take such action. That means there is still a lingering question of his capability and willingness to take action.
B talks about public, which we are not interested in.
D is out of scope because it doesn’t help in reinforcing the idea that reducing the traffic enforcement is not going to help.
E This options weaken the argument by saying that traffic police may not be needed at those places.

C is our answer. This strengthens the idea that reducing the traffic enforcement is not going to help because if these offenders of serious crimes consider traffic law as lesser constraints, they will be committing more such crimes of breaking the traffic laws and hence the traffic police will be needed at the time of the crime to catch them red handed.
Manager
Joined: 03 Apr 2016
Posts: 90
Location: India
Schools: ISB '19, IIMB
GMAT 1: 580 Q43 V27
GMAT 2: 650 Q32 V48
GRE 1: 311 Q160 V151
GPA: 3.99
WE: Design (Consulting)

### Show Tags

16 Apr 2018, 06:25
This is an awesome question. The argument would work only when the people who commit serious crimes make traffic violations and get caught by the traffic cops. Otherwise these people go unnoticed by traffic cops then reassigning cops to a different job will be a good option. The only option that supports this narrative is option C. Hence the right answer.
Re: Budget constraints have made police officials consider reassigning   [#permalink] 16 Apr 2018, 06:25
Display posts from previous: Sort by