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.

Premise: Reducing the officers from traffic enforcement will be counterproductive because some serious crimes can be stopped before by the traffic police officers.
We need to strengthen this. Option C tells us that the people committing serious crimes pay no heed to traffic laws and thus can be nabbed by the officers. If the number of traffic police officers are reduced, then there are less chances that such people would be caught.
Option A just talks about violent confrontation, but it does not tell why the move of reducing officers will be counter productive.

Does this help?

Here is the Official explanation.

_________________

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

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....

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

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

mike - Could you please explain option C :unwilling to observe what they regard as the lesser constraints of traffic law:

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.

We need to look for an answer that is connecting traffic violation and serious crimes. remember "the italian job 2003". if a traffic cop would have present at all those stops, all those crimes would not have been committed. but its a movie, any thing can happen. Point is that many people will think about committing a crime if traffic policeman is standing at every stop. option C is on same lines.

_________________

Thanks!
Do give some kudos.

Simple strategy:
“Once you’ve eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

Want to improve your Score:
GMAT Ninja YouTube! Series 1| GMAT Ninja YouTube! Series 2

My Notes:
Reading comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Absolute Phrases