It is currently 18 Oct 2017, 02:55

### 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

Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 05 Nov 2012
Posts: 531

Kudos [?]: 618 [3], given: 606

Concentration: Technology, Other

### Show Tags

21 Aug 2015, 07:22
3
KUDOS
18
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

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.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

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

Kudos [?]: 618 [3], given: 606

Intern
Joined: 07 Jul 2015
Posts: 11

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 4

### 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.

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 4

Manager
Joined: 24 Jul 2011
Posts: 229

Kudos [?]: 48 [0], given: 93

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!

Kudos [?]: 48 [0], given: 93

Intern
Joined: 15 Nov 2015
Posts: 47

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

14 Apr 2016, 09:05
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.

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 1

Manager
Joined: 22 Sep 2015
Posts: 112

Kudos [?]: 75 [0], given: 136

### 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.

Kudos [?]: 75 [0], given: 136

Manager
Joined: 06 Jun 2014
Posts: 93

Kudos [?]: 86 [0], given: 109

Location: United States
Concentration: Finance, General Management
GMAT 1: 450 Q27 V21
GPA: 3.47

### Show Tags

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

budget constraints.png [ 143.76 KiB | Viewed 6471 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

Kudos [?]: 86 [0], given: 109

Senior Manager
Joined: 20 Aug 2015
Posts: 396

Kudos [?]: 336 [2], given: 10

Location: India
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V44

### Show Tags

30 May 2016, 02:39
2
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 !!!!
_________________

Reach out to us at bondwithus@gmatify.com

Kudos [?]: 336 [2], given: 10

Senior Manager
Joined: 20 Aug 2015
Posts: 396

Kudos [?]: 336 [0], given: 10

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 !!!
_________________

Reach out to us at bondwithus@gmatify.com

Kudos [?]: 336 [0], given: 10

Intern
Joined: 11 Apr 2015
Posts: 36

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 98

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

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 98

Manager
Joined: 22 Sep 2015
Posts: 112

Kudos [?]: 75 [0], given: 136

### 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....

Kudos [?]: 75 [0], given: 136

Intern
Joined: 20 Jan 2013
Posts: 47

Kudos [?]: 40 [0], given: 70

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

Kudos [?]: 40 [0], given: 70

Manager
Joined: 03 Jan 2017
Posts: 197

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 4

### 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

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 4

Status: It's now or never
Joined: 10 Feb 2017
Posts: 275

Kudos [?]: 27 [0], given: 51

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

Kudos [?]: 27 [0], given: 51

Manager
Joined: 28 Jun 2015
Posts: 71

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 111

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

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 111

Budget constraints have made police officials consider reassigning   [#permalink] 20 Sep 2017, 16:49
Display posts from previous: Sort by