GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 14 Dec 2019, 08:30

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.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Budget constraints have made police officials consider reassigning a

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Find Similar Topics 
Manager
Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 26 Dec 2017
Posts: 148
Reviews Badge
Re: Budget constraints have made police officials consider reassigning a  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 May 2018, 03:55
I did not get the meaning of correct answer. Any one pls explain what does this mean:
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.
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 29 Oct 2016
Posts: 23
GMAT ToolKit User
Budget constraints have made police officials consider reassigning a  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 02 Jun 2018, 03:17
tejyr wrote:
I did not get the meaning of correct answer. Any one pls explain what does this mean:
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.


"Observe" here means "obey the rules/law", doesn't mean "watch" as we usually use. So, "unwilling to observe what they regard as the lesser constraints of traffic law" means they don't want to obey the rules/law that they think lesser constraints of traffic law, hence, they break such rules/law. But actually those rules/law are not less serious as they thought, so they will be caught by the polices.

Originally posted by Labmalo on 19 May 2018, 20:19.
Last edited by Labmalo on 02 Jun 2018, 03:17, edited 1 time in total.
Director
Director
User avatar
V
Joined: 12 Feb 2015
Posts: 966
Re: Budget constraints have made police officials consider reassigning a  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Jun 2018, 02:28
In simple words option C says, "Those willing to break the law to commit serious crimes don't take traffic law so seriously". So criminals breaking laws of serious degree are likely to break traffic law.

From question stem:- An officer stopping a car for a traffic violation can make a search that turns up evidence of serious crime. If the a criminal who has committed a serious crime is also breaking a traffic law then the likelihood of the criminal being caught increases.

Option C is correct!!
_________________
________________
Manish :geek:

"Only I can change my life. No one can do it for me"
Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 14 Jul 2014
Posts: 86
Location: India
Concentration: Social Entrepreneurship, Strategy
GMAT 1: 620 Q41 V34
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: Budget constraints have made police officials consider reassigning a  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Sep 2018, 08:32
Quote:
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.
Argument analysis:
Conclusion: Reducing traffic enforcement for this reason would be counterproductive
Why?
Premises 1: in light of the tendency of criminals to use cars when engaged in the commission of serious crimes.
Premises 2: An officer stopping a car for a traffic violation can make a search that turns up evidence of serious crime.
Quote:
Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument given?
We need to strengthen the conclusion and support that moving the traffic police officers to work higher-priority, serious crimes isn't justified.
Quote:
(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.
The violent confrontation that an traffic officer may have to face while stopping a vehicle because of traffic violation has nothing to do with the conclusion. This answer option neither strengthen nor weaken the conclusion.
Quote:
(B) When the public becomes aware that traffic enforcement has lessened, it typically becomes lax in obeying traffic rules.
Conclusion has nothing to with the general public, and weather they follow the traffic rules or not. The matter of concern here is the movement of the traffic police officers to work on higher-priority, serious crimes.
Quote:
(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.
This absolutely hits the bulls eye. The answer option cites that those who are willing to commit bigger crimes, don't bother breaking laws which they consider lesser constrained such as the traffic laws. Hence the traffic police officers while catching such violators may uncover the evidence of potential serious crime, or the crime already happened. Let's keep C until we find a better option.
Quote:
(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.
If both the groups of offenders are different this answer option rather weakens the conclusion, saying that there is no correlation between the work traffic police officers would do in their office or in the office of higher-priority serious crimes.
Goes Out.
Quote:
(E) The great majority of persons who are stopped by officers for traffic violations are not guilty of any serious crimes.
If this is the scenario then this answer option poses a similar situation as in answer option D. No correlation. Hence Goes out.
Best Option is C.
Director
Director
User avatar
V
Joined: 12 Feb 2015
Posts: 966
Budget constraints have made police officials consider reassigning a  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Oct 2018, 04:16
Official Answer:

Argument Construction

Situation Budget constraints have made police officials consider reassigning many officers from traffic enforcement to work on serious crimes. But criminals often drive when committing serious crimes, and police who stop cars for traffic violations can find evidence of those crimes.

Reasoning What additional information, when combined with the argument provided, would suggest that it would be counterproductive to reassign officers from traffic enforcement to work on serious crimes? The argument implicitly reasons that because officers working on traffic enforcement can turn up evidence of serious crimes by searching cars that commit traffic violations, reassigning those officers would hinder police efforts to prevent serious crime, even if the officers were reassigned to work directly on serious crime. The argument could be strengthened by information suggesting that traffic enforcement may increase the probability that evidence relating to serious crimes will be discovered.

Option C is Correct. This suggests that people committing serious crimes often commit traffic violations as well, increasing the likelihood that traffic enforcement officers will stop and search their cars and find evidence of those crimes.

Why are the incorrect answers "incorrect":-

Option A is incorrect: If anything, this risk of violence might discourage traffic enforcement officers from stopping and searching as many cars, thus reducing their effectiveness at preventing serious crimes.

Option B is incorrect: This suggests that reassigning officers from traffic enforcement to work on serious crimes would increase the number of unpunished minor traffic violations, not the number of unpunished serious crimes.

Option D is incorrect: The question at issue is not whether the same offenders would be caught if the officers were reassigned, but rather whether more or fewer offenders would be caught.

Option E is incorrect: This weakens the argument by suggesting that most work by traffic enforcement officers is unrelated to preventing serious crimes.
_________________
________________
Manish :geek:

"Only I can change my life. No one can do it for me"
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 01 Apr 2017
Posts: 44
Re: Budget constraints have made police officials consider reassigning a  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Oct 2018, 04:45
1
tejyr wrote:
I did not get the meaning of correct answer. Any one pls explain what does this mean:
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.


    Those willing to break the law to commit serious crimes = relevant criminal group talked about in the argument

    in committing such crimes = while committing serious crimes

    (are often) unwilling to observe what they regard as the lesser constraints of traffic law. = (the relevant criminal group while committing serious crimes) does not often follow traffic rules. These traffic rules are considered less important by this criminal group.

Hope the above explanation helps!

Cheers!

NS
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 18 Sep 2016
Posts: 36
Re: Budget constraints have made police officials consider reassigning a  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Dec 2018, 21:58
Hi Expert,

Could you please explain why D is wrong. I think as criminals won't be caught because of reassignment, it is a strengthener
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
User avatar
D
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 3008
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
Re: Budget constraints have made police officials consider reassigning a  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Jan 2019, 16:52
3
torto wrote:
Hi Expert,

Could you please explain why D is wrong. I think as criminals won't be caught because of reassignment, it is a strengthener

torto, let's compare your paraphrasing (in bold above), to the answer choice as written:

Quote:
(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 answer choice identifies two groups of offenders: those who would be caught because of traffic violations, and those who would be caught if arresting officers were moved off of traffic enforcement into some other role.

We know from the passage that offenders have a "tendency... to use cars when engaged in the commission of serious crimes." What we don't know is how many offenders would be caught in a traffic stop, versus how many would be caught by those officers if they were reassigned elsewhere. So, we cannot conclude that this answer choice will strengthen the argument of the passage.

Your rewording of the answer choice only addresses one of the two groups: the criminals who will not be caught. Be careful when you paraphrase, because it is easy to leave out useful stuff.

I hope this helps!
_________________
GMAT/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (we're hiring!) | GMAT Club Verbal Expert | Instagram | Blog | Bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal: RC | CR | SC

YouTube LIVE verbal webinars: all videos by topic

SC articles & resources: How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

RC, CR, and other articles & resources: All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for $29.99 | Time management on verbal

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations: All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Need an expert reply? Hit the request verbal experts' reply button; be specific about your question, and tag @GMATNinja. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.
Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 15 Jan 2018
Posts: 66
Re: Budget constraints have made police officials consider reassigning a  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Aug 2019, 13:41
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.

Argument Construction

Situation Budget constraints have made police officials consider reassigning many officers from traffic enforcement to work on serious crimes. But criminals often drive when committing serious crimes, and police who stop cars for traffic violations can find evidence of those crimes.

Reasoning What additional information, when combined with the argument provided, would suggest that it would be counterproductive to reassign officers from traffic enforcement to work on serious crimes?

The argument implicitly reasons that because officers working on traffic enforcement can turn up evidence of serious crimes by searching cars that commit traffic violations, reassigning those officers would hinder police efforts to prevent serious crime, even if the officers were reassigned to work directly on serious crime. The argument could be strengthened by information suggesting that traffic enforcement may increase the probability that evidence relating to serious crimes will be discovered.

(C) Correct. This suggests that people committing serious crimes often commit traffic violations as well, increasing the likelihood that traffic enforcement officers will stop and search their cars and find evidence of those 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.

What the author is trying to display here is that a normal traffic stop can turn into a discovery of a serious crime and/or confrontation. While this can hold true, it doesn't actually prove to us that changing the focus of officers from traffic enforcement to criminal activity will actually result in fewer criminal arrests.

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

This one is very attractive, because it shows that there would be more traffic violations when the public is aware that there is a lesser number of officers enforcing traffic. The decision to change the focus of police from traffic enforcement to criminal activity results in police making fewer traffic stops; Lets keep in mind that criminals use cars when committing crimes. BUT, this is not airtight because it doesn't actually tell us that this has the effect of a reduced number of criminal activity arrests. Rather, this just tells us that there would be more traffic violations.

(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.

Bingo. This tells us that those who commit crimes will, while committing these crimes, fail to obey the less serious traffic laws. This tells us that changing the focus of police from traffic stops to more serious crimes could be counter-intuitive, because this shows that one of the ways to catch these criminals is to have officers monitor and enforce traffic!

(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.

This shows a neutral shift. This shows that police officers will not only catch criminals on the road, but there are also other criminals out there who aren't on the road who could also be caught. But to strengthen the argument, we need to show that changing the focus of police actually results in fewer arrested criminals.

(E) The great majority of persons who are stopped by officers for traffic violations are not guilty of any serious crimes.

This is a weakener, this is the "gimme" if you will. It shows that changing the focus of police could actually show more arrested criminals, the opposite of what the argument states.
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 28 Jan 2017
Posts: 53
Re: Budget constraints have made police officials consider reassigning a  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Aug 2019, 23:52
Dear VeritasKarishma GMATNinja,

How is choice C. different from the last statement in the passage?


Choice 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.

Passage: ... An officer stopping a car for a traffic violation can make a search that turns up evidence of serious crime.


Both choice C. and passage talk about the serious crime offenders breaking the traffic laws. Can you please point out the differences between the two?

Thank you in advance!
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 11 Aug 2019
Posts: 59
Budget constraints have made police officials consider reassigning a  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Sep 2019, 20:50
Dear Expert/ GMATNinja,

I do not understand why the answer is not A - isn't that the point? Police officer stopping a car containing evidence of the commission of a serious crime IS exactly what he wants. And so what if he faces a violent confrontation, what kind of police who wants to find and confront criminals is afraid of violent confrontation?

Isn't the possibility of stopping a car that contains evidence of the commission of a serious crime THE EXACT REASON why we should not reduce the number of traffic enforcement officers (so that they can stop as many cars that contain crime evidence as possible)?

Thank you!
Target Test Prep Representative
User avatar
D
Status: Chief Curriculum and Content Architect
Affiliations: Target Test Prep
Joined: 24 Nov 2014
Posts: 627
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Re: Budget constraints have made police officials consider reassigning a  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Sep 2019, 07:24
2
shabuzen102 wrote:
Dear Expert/ GMATNinja,

I do not understand why the answer is not A - isn't that the point? Police officer stopping a car containing evidence of the commission of a serious crime IS exactly what he wants. And so what if he faces a violent confrontation, what kind of police who wants to find and confront criminals is afraid of violent confrontation?

Isn't the possibility of stopping a car that contains evidence of the commission of a serious crime THE EXACT REASON why we should not reduce the number of traffic enforcement officers (so that they can stop as many cars that contain crime evidence as possible)?

Thank you!

To correctly answer this question, we have to strengthen support for the conclusion of the argument. So, let's identify the conclusion.

    Conclusion: Reducing traffic enforcement for this reason would be counterproductive (to the goal of increasing the number of officers working on serious crimes).

We need information that strengthens the support for that conclusion.

Here's (A).

    (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.

All (A) describes what happens IF an officer stops a car containing evidence of a serious crime. (A) does not say that officers on traffic duty WILL or ARE LIKELY TO stop cars containing such evidence. So, (A) provides no reason to keep officers on traffic duty rather than reassign them to working directly on serious crime.
_________________

Marty Murray

Chief Curriculum and Content Architect

Marty@targettestprep.com
TTP - Target Test Prep Logo
122 Reviews

5-star rated online GMAT quant
self study course

See why Target Test Prep is the top rated GMAT quant course on GMAT Club. Read Our Reviews

If you find one of my posts helpful, please take a moment to click on the "Kudos" button.

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 11 Aug 2019
Posts: 59
Re: Budget constraints have made police officials consider reassigning a  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Sep 2019, 19:50
1
MartyTargetTestPrep wrote:
shabuzen102 wrote:
Dear Expert/ GMATNinja,

I do not understand why the answer is not A - isn't that the point? Police officer stopping a car containing evidence of the commission of a serious crime IS exactly what he wants. And so what if he faces a violent confrontation, what kind of police who wants to find and confront criminals is afraid of violent confrontation?

Isn't the possibility of stopping a car that contains evidence of the commission of a serious crime THE EXACT REASON why we should not reduce the number of traffic enforcement officers (so that they can stop as many cars that contain crime evidence as possible)?

Thank you!

To correctly answer this question, we have to strengthen support for the conclusion of the argument. So, let's identify the conclusion.

    Conclusion: Reducing traffic enforcement for this reason would be counterproductive (to the goal of increasing the number of officers working on serious crimes).

We need information that strengthens the support for that conclusion.

Here's (A).

    (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.

All (A) describes what happens IF an officer stops a car containing evidence of a serious crime. (A) does not say that officers on traffic duty WILL or ARE LIKELY TO stop cars containing such evidence. So, (A) provides no reason to keep officers on traffic duty rather than reassign them to working directly on serious crime.



Dear Marty,

I think I get it now - so that sentence was just stating matter of fact, rather than making a judgement call.

Thank you very much. That was helpful!

Cheers.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 24 Jul 2019
Posts: 154
Location: Austria
GPA: 3.9
CAT Tests
Budget constraints have made police officials consider reassigning a  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Nov 2019, 02:15
Tough choice, D) is the trap answer because it leads you off the guard by suggesting you that less criminals comitting serious crimes will be catched by reassigning police officers. I picked it, but thought through it again now and that is not what the argument actually suggests.

This question is a great example though of how test makers trying to distract us. I am pretty sure this question would have been answered right by 85% or more if the correct answer choice would be phrased as:

"Criminals who commit serious crimes are also those type of people who do break minor laws such as traffic laws"

The placement of C) and D) is not by default, in my opinion. Answer C) sounds extremely akward and weird and my first thought when reading through it was to move on to the last two answer choices in hoping I could find something which sounds better ... and they let me run right in the trap with D) - fine, a good sounding, logical answer that lets me forget about weird answer choice C) on which I did not even understand the meaning of it.

Very good example of a typical CR trap! GMATNinja, would be a good bookmark for a CR video in the future? ;)
_________________
Let's get some
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 31 Aug 2018
Posts: 59
GMAT 1: 610 Q46 V28
Re: Budget constraints have made police officials consider reassigning a  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Dec 2019, 19:55
VeritasKarishma wrote:
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.

Argument Construction

Situation Budget constraints have made police officials consider reassigning many officers from traffic enforcement to work on serious crimes. But criminals often drive when committing serious crimes, and police who stop cars for traffic violations can find evidence of those crimes.

Reasoning What additional information, when combined with the argument provided, would suggest that it would be counterproductive to reassign officers from traffic enforcement to work on serious crimes?

The argument implicitly reasons that because officers working on traffic enforcement can turn up evidence of serious crimes by searching cars that commit traffic violations, reassigning those officers would hinder police efforts to prevent serious crime, even if the officers were reassigned to work directly on serious crime. The argument could be strengthened by information suggesting that traffic enforcement may increase the probability that evidence relating to serious crimes will be discovered.

(C) Correct. This suggests that people committing serious crimes often commit traffic violations as well, increasing the likelihood that traffic enforcement officers will stop and search their cars and find evidence of those crimes.


Criminals, while committing crimes, use cars.
Traffic police can search when stopping a car for a traffic violation. They might find evidence of serious crime during search.

So, do not reassign traffic policemen to serious crime.

The argument depends on traffic policemen being able to find serious crime while carrying out their duty as traffic policemen. The argument will not make a lot of sense if those carrying out serious crime do not break traffic rules. Then they will not be stopped and searched and hence the argument falls apart.

What strengthens the argument? If something tells us that serious criminals often break traffic rules so they would be stopped for traffic offences. Then a search would be carried out and evidence found.

(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.
This tells us that criminals often break traffic rules while carrying out crime. Then it makes it more likely that traffic police will stop them.
So the argument makes sense that we shouldn't reassign traffic policemen to serious crime.

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

We need a connect between traffic rule breaking and serious crime.



Hi VeritasKarishma

I got this wrong and chose option 'B'. I can see now why option 'C' is the right answer, but I am unable to understand the gap in my logic for choosing option 'B'.
As per 'B', there will be a higher number of traffic violations now and since we have fewer traffic policemen left, because of their movement to crime, we will not have adequate traffic policemen to handle this increase in traffic violations, leading to people committing serious crimes to abscond (probability becomes higher) as the traffic police would now be busy in handling increased number of violations.

These serious crime committers would have been caught if the traffic policemen numbers would not have been reduced.

Hope I was able to explain my reasoning clearly.

Thanks
Saurabh
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
V
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 9876
Location: Pune, India
Re: Budget constraints have made police officials consider reassigning a  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Dec 2019, 21:12
1
Sarjaria84 wrote:
VeritasKarishma wrote:
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.

Argument Construction

Situation Budget constraints have made police officials consider reassigning many officers from traffic enforcement to work on serious crimes. But criminals often drive when committing serious crimes, and police who stop cars for traffic violations can find evidence of those crimes.

Reasoning What additional information, when combined with the argument provided, would suggest that it would be counterproductive to reassign officers from traffic enforcement to work on serious crimes?

The argument implicitly reasons that because officers working on traffic enforcement can turn up evidence of serious crimes by searching cars that commit traffic violations, reassigning those officers would hinder police efforts to prevent serious crime, even if the officers were reassigned to work directly on serious crime. The argument could be strengthened by information suggesting that traffic enforcement may increase the probability that evidence relating to serious crimes will be discovered.

(C) Correct. This suggests that people committing serious crimes often commit traffic violations as well, increasing the likelihood that traffic enforcement officers will stop and search their cars and find evidence of those crimes.


Criminals, while committing crimes, use cars.
Traffic police can search when stopping a car for a traffic violation. They might find evidence of serious crime during search.

So, do not reassign traffic policemen to serious crime.

The argument depends on traffic policemen being able to find serious crime while carrying out their duty as traffic policemen. The argument will not make a lot of sense if those carrying out serious crime do not break traffic rules. Then they will not be stopped and searched and hence the argument falls apart.

What strengthens the argument? If something tells us that serious criminals often break traffic rules so they would be stopped for traffic offences. Then a search would be carried out and evidence found.

(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.
This tells us that criminals often break traffic rules while carrying out crime. Then it makes it more likely that traffic police will stop them.
So the argument makes sense that we shouldn't reassign traffic policemen to serious crime.

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

We need a connect between traffic rule breaking and serious crime.



Hi VeritasKarishma

I got this wrong and chose option 'B'. I can see now why option 'C' is the right answer, but I am unable to understand the gap in my logic for choosing option 'B'.
As per 'B', there will be a higher number of traffic violations now and since we have fewer traffic policemen left, because of their movement to crime, we will not have adequate traffic policemen to handle this increase in traffic violations, leading to people committing serious crimes to abscond (probability becomes higher) as the traffic police would now be busy in handling increased number of violations.

These serious crime committers would have been caught if the traffic policemen numbers would not have been reduced.

Hope I was able to explain my reasoning clearly.

Thanks
Saurabh


(B) tells us that reassigning policemen to serious crime will lead to increase in traffic violations. It has no connection with increase in serious crime. The agenda right now is to reduce serious crime by reassigning instead of hiring due to budget constraints.
This option gives us no connection between traffic crime and serious crime. Hence we don't understand why moving traffic policemen to serious crime is counterproductive to the intent of reducing serious crime.

Option (C) explains that it is easy to identify serious criminals because they commit traffic crimes too. Hence moving would be counterproductive.
_________________
Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

Learn more about how Veritas Prep can help you achieve a great GMAT score by checking out their GMAT Prep Options >
GMAT Club Bot
Re: Budget constraints have made police officials consider reassigning a   [#permalink] 11 Dec 2019, 21:12

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 36 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

Budget constraints have made police officials consider reassigning a

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  





Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne