It is currently 19 Sep 2017, 13:58

### 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

# In December of 1987 an automobile manufacture pleaded no

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10157

Kudos [?]: 253 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

28 Oct 2015, 08:22
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

33% (01:06) correct 67% (01:05) wrong based on 135 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Kudos [?]: 253 [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 11 Jan 2014
Posts: 31

Kudos [?]: 13 [0], given: 58

Location: Viet Nam
Concentration: Accounting, Finance
GPA: 3.17
WE: Analyst (Accounting)

### Show Tags

10 Mar 2016, 22:06
egmat wrote:
Hi All,

In December of 1987 an automobile manufacture pleaded no contest to criminal charges of odometer tampering and agreed to pay more than \$16 million in civil damages for cars that were test-driven with their odometers disconnected.

Understanding the intended meaning of the sentence is the key to get to the correct answer choice. The automobile manufacturer agreed to pay the fine for its action. It agreed to pay for the action of test-driving the cars which had their odometers disconnected.

Per the original choice, the auto manufacturers agreed to pay fine for the cars and not for their action. This distorts the intended meaning of the sentence.

PoE:

(A) cars that were test-driven with their odometers disconnected: Incorrect for the reason stated above.

(B) cars that it had test-driven with their disconnected odometers: Incorrect. Same error as in choice A.

(C) its cars having been test-driven with disconnected odometers: Incorrect. Same error as in choice A.

(D) having test-driven cars with their odometers disconnected: Correct. This choice correctly conveys the action for which the auto manufacturers agreed to pay the fine.

(E) having cars that were test-driven with disconnected odometers: Incorrect. Per this choice, the auto manufacturers agreed to pay the fine for “having cars”. This is not the intended meaning.

Hope this helps.
Thanks.

In (E), I thought that "that were test driven" modifies "cars" so the meaning will not be different from (D). Is there any different between "test driven cars" and "cars that were test driven" .
_________________

Never forget what you are fighting for...
and when your mind and your body tell you to quit. Your heart will tell you to fight.

Kudos [?]: 13 [0], given: 58

Retired Moderator
Status: worked for Kaplan's associates, but now on my own, free and flying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 4271

Kudos [?]: 7578 [0], given: 360

Location: India
WE: Education (Education)

### Show Tags

11 Mar 2016, 08:33
The intent is clear here. The fine is for doing the crime of test driving cars whose odometers had been disconnected with an ulterior motive. The fine is not either for having the cars that were test-driven or for possessing the cars that were test-driven. The company can also escape if its cars were test driven not necessarily by the company but maybe even by some other entity. Only D establishes that the manufacturer itself did the crime. Hence D survies.
_________________

“Better than a thousand days of diligent study is one day with a great teacher” – a Japanese proverb.
9884544509

Last edited by daagh on 11 Mar 2016, 09:11, edited 1 time in total.

Kudos [?]: 7578 [0], given: 360

Intern
Joined: 11 Jan 2014
Posts: 31

Kudos [?]: 13 [0], given: 58

Location: Viet Nam
Concentration: Accounting, Finance
GPA: 3.17
WE: Analyst (Accounting)

### Show Tags

11 Mar 2016, 08:51
daagh wrote:
The intent is clear here. The fine is for doing the crime of test driving cars whose odometers had been disconnected with an ulterior motive. The fine is not either for having the cars that were test-driven or for possessing the cars that were test-driven. The company can also escape if its cars were test driven not necessarily by the company but maybe even by some other entity. Only D establishes that the manufacturer itself did the crime. Hence D scurvies.

Thanks Daagh,
I understand now!
_________________

Never forget what you are fighting for...
and when your mind and your body tell you to quit. Your heart will tell you to fight.

Kudos [?]: 13 [0], given: 58

Re: In December of 1987 an automobile manufacture pleaded no   [#permalink] 11 Mar 2016, 08:51
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
4 Two British hackers pleaded 4 23 Apr 2017, 01:47
To be a leading manufacturer in the automobile industry, a company mus 1 09 Aug 2017, 00:21
4 Domestic automobile manufacturers have invested millions of 7 10 Apr 2016, 02:59
One automobile manufacturer has announced plans to increase 5 19 Jan 2012, 20:37
23 In December of 1987 an automobile manufacturer pleaded no 27 31 Jul 2017, 12:27
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# In December of 1987 an automobile manufacture pleaded no

 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®.