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

It is currently 20 Jul 2018, 09:34

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

In December of 1987 an automobile manufacturer pleaded no

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

Hide Tags

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 07 Aug 2010
Posts: 67
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: In December of 1987 an automobile manufacture pleaded  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Oct 2010, 21:40
D :lol:
Expert Post
3 KUDOS received
Retired Moderator
User avatar
P
Status: worked for Kaplan's associates, but now on my own, free and flying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 4463
Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Re: pronoun ?  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Mar 2011, 07:17
3
1
Here is an another angle to this Q

Point1. The test- driving occurred prior to pleading. So that must be expressed in either a past perfect or some such equivalent expression that brings out that priorness

Point 2. ‘Disconnected motors’ is inferior to ‘odometers that were disconnected, because the former gives a feeling as if there is some special kind of odometers such as disconnected odometers and connected odometers.

B and D are in contention. But B suffers from using the inelegant phrase ‘disconnected odometers’.

D is a better choice for clearly bringing out that the tests had been carried out prior to pleading by marking the tests as ‘having test-driven’ and for using the more acceptable ‘ their odometers disconnected’
_________________

you can know a lot about something and not really understand it."-- a quote
No one knows this better than a GMAT student does.
Narendran +9198845 44509

Director
Director
avatar
Status: Impossible is not a fact. It's an opinion. It's a dare. Impossible is nothing.
Affiliations: University of Chicago Booth School of Business
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 793
Reviews Badge
Re: pronoun ?  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Mar 2011, 07:34
D wins because of ||ism. Charges of ( ing and ing ) ie tampering and having

Posted from my mobile device
Board of Directors
User avatar
P
Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Posts: 2722
Location: United States (IL)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V30
GPA: 3.92
WE: General Management (Transportation)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: In December of 1987 an automobile manufacturer pleaded no  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Nov 2015, 21:18
whichscore wrote:
In December of 1987 an automobile manufacturer 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
(A) cars that were test-driven with their odometers disconnected
(B) cars that it had test-driven with their disconnected odometers
(C) its cars having been test-driven with disconnected odometers
(D) having test-driven cars with their odometers disconnected
(E) having cars that were test-driven with disconnected odometers



well, it's illogical to say that the company paid damages for cars...
maybe it paid for having cars with no odometers?

A,B, and C - out.

between D and E - D is the winner.
E changes the meaning:
having cars
cars that were test driven with disconnected odometers -- again, same mistake as in A,B,and C - company paid damages for having cars...no

D - company paid damages for having cars with their odometers disconnected!!!
Intern
Intern
User avatar
Joined: 11 Jan 2014
Posts: 31
Location: Viet Nam
Concentration: Accounting, Finance
GPA: 3.17
WE: Analyst (Accounting)
Re: In December of 1987 an automobile manufacture pleaded no  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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.

Image

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.

Image

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.
Shraddha


Hi Shraddha,

I do not clearly understand your answer. Would you please help me more on this? Thanks in advance.
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.

Expert Post
Retired Moderator
User avatar
P
Status: worked for Kaplan's associates, but now on my own, free and flying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 4463
Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
In December of 1987 an automobile manufacture pleaded no  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 11 Mar 2016, 09:11
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.
_________________

you can know a lot about something and not really understand it."-- a quote
No one knows this better than a GMAT student does.
Narendran +9198845 44509


Originally posted by daagh on 11 Mar 2016, 08:33.
Last edited by daagh on 11 Mar 2016, 09:11, edited 1 time in total.
Intern
Intern
User avatar
Joined: 11 Jan 2014
Posts: 31
Location: Viet Nam
Concentration: Accounting, Finance
GPA: 3.17
WE: Analyst (Accounting)
Re: In December of 1987 an automobile manufacture pleaded no  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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.

Verbal Forum Moderator
avatar
B
Joined: 13 Feb 2015
Posts: 662
Premium Member
Re: In December of 1987 an automobile manufacturer pleaded no  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 Jul 2017, 12:27
Merged topics. Please, search before posting questions!
_________________

Please Read: Verbal Posting Rules

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 21 Sep 2015
Posts: 59
Reviews Badge
Re: In December of 1987 an automobile manufacturer pleaded no  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Nov 2017, 07:31
I disagree with majority here:

*having test-driven cars with their odometers disconnected* this doesn't necessarily convey that this event happened prior to the pleading.

If this said *having SOLD test-driven cars with their odometers disconnected*, then I would be a lot more inclined to pick this choice.

IMO this isn't a good question, move on folks.
_________________

Insanity at its finest.

Manager
Manager
User avatar
S
Joined: 04 Dec 2016
Posts: 115
Re: In December of 1987 an automobile manufacturer pleaded no  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Nov 2017, 12:15
bsv180985 wrote:
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
(A) cars that were test-driven with their odometers disconnected
(B) cars that it had test-driven with their disconnected odometers
(C) its cars having been test-driven with disconnected odometers
(D) having test-driven cars with their odometers disconnected
(E) having cars that were test-driven with disconnected odometers


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

Manufacturer was not agreed to pay for cars but for having test-driven cars with disconnected odometers - A, B & C out

(A) cars that were test-driven with their odometers disconnected
(B) cars that it had test-driven with their disconnected odometers
(C) its cars having been test-driven with disconnected odometers
(D) having test-driven cars with their odometers disconnected - test driven is correctley modifying cars without odometers - correct choice
(E) having cars that were test-driven with disconnected odometers - chnages the meaning
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 08 Dec 2016
Posts: 40
CAT Tests
Re: In December of 1987 an automobile manufacturer pleaded no  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Feb 2018, 03:37
bsv180985 wrote:
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
(A) cars that were test-driven with their odometers disconnected
(B) cars that it had test-driven with their disconnected odometers
(C) its cars having been test-driven with disconnected odometers
(D) having test-driven cars with their odometers disconnected
(E) having cars that were test-driven with disconnected odometers


E is the correct. E is correct mainly for a matter of meaning.
"An automobile manufacture .. agreed to pay more than $16 million - for which reason ---> for having tested-driven car ...

In A and B, it seems that an automobile manufacture paid only for the cars with their odometers and not for what it did.
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 02 Jul 2016
Posts: 114
Re: In December of 1987 an automobile manufacturer pleaded no  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Mar 2018, 00:54
serbiano wrote:
OA - D.

They've paid for HAVING TEST DRIVEN CARS,
not for cars or for having cars.


Thanks for the explanation.
But how did you infer that the automobile manufacturer will test drive the cars that had tampered odometers?
The manufacturer's job is to manufacture something and the test drive would be done by the customer?
So I think A should be the answer.
Expert Post
2 KUDOS received
Math Expert
User avatar
V
Joined: 02 Aug 2009
Posts: 6258
In December of 1987 an automobile manufacturer pleaded no  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Mar 2018, 17:43
2
Meaning issue..
The damages are NOT for cars itself but for DRIVING cars without odometer.
Hence FOR should be followed by something to do with driving car and not just car..
Eliminate A,B and C.
Even E has a meaning issue.
D clearly mentions that the civil damages were for having test driven cars without odometer.
D
_________________

1) Absolute modulus : http://gmatclub.com/forum/absolute-modulus-a-better-understanding-210849.html#p1622372
2)Combination of similar and dissimilar things : http://gmatclub.com/forum/topic215915.html
3) effects of arithmetic operations : https://gmatclub.com/forum/effects-of-arithmetic-operations-on-fractions-269413.html


GMAT online Tutor

In December of 1987 an automobile manufacturer pleaded no &nbs [#permalink] 29 Mar 2018, 17:43

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 34 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

In December of 1987 an automobile manufacturer pleaded no

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

Events & Promotions

PREV
NEXT


cron

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®.