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

It is currently 17 Oct 2018, 04:55

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

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 29 Oct 2016
Posts: 14
GMAT ToolKit User CAT Tests
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.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
D
Joined: 12 Feb 2015
Posts: 489
Premium Member CAT Tests
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!!
_________________

"Please hit :thumbup: +1 Kudos if you like this post" :student_man:

_________________
Manish :geek:

"Only I can change my life. No one can do it for me"

Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 14 Jul 2014
Posts: 103
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.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
D
Joined: 12 Feb 2015
Posts: 489
Premium Member CAT Tests
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.
_________________

"Please hit :thumbup: +1 Kudos if you like this post" :student_man:

_________________
Manish :geek:

"Only I can change my life. No one can do it for me"

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 01 Apr 2017
Posts: 38
Re: Budget constraints have made police officials consider reassigning a  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Oct 2018, 04:45
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
GMAT Club Bot
Re: Budget constraints have made police officials consider reassigning a &nbs [#permalink] 16 Oct 2018, 04:45

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 25 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  


Copyright

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

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

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.