Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases https://gmatclub.com/AppTrack
GMAT Club

 It is currently 22 Mar 2017, 21:45

### 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 manufacturer pleaded no

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 06 Jul 2005
Posts: 118
Location: Bangalore, India
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 84 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

02 Nov 2005, 19:41
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

50% (02:30) correct 50% (01:00) wrong based on 17 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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
If you have any questions
New!
Manager
Joined: 04 Sep 2005
Posts: 142
Location: Fringes of the Boreal, Canada
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 18 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

02 Nov 2005, 20:54
It is definetly not A & B. I understand C) is poorly worded but it seems to be the right choice only because it gets the main point across. The automobile manufacturer pleaded no contest because it had test driven cars with disconnected odometers.
Intern
Joined: 29 Oct 2005
Posts: 33
Location: Toronto, ON
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

02 Nov 2005, 21:23
I think it's D because the civil damages where for the "test-driving"
Manager
Joined: 07 Jul 2005
Posts: 106
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

02 Nov 2005, 22:32
My pick is D.

The company has to pay for test-driving a car -- not for the car itself.
Manager
Joined: 06 Jul 2005
Posts: 118
Location: Bangalore, India
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 84 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

03 Nov 2005, 07:20
OA is D
Manager
Joined: 04 Sep 2005
Posts: 142
Location: Fringes of the Boreal, Canada
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 18 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

03 Nov 2005, 11:37
I liked D) initially but I felt it was wrong because it appeared to have two meanings. 1) the auto manufacturer simply has in its posession test driven cars with disconnected odometers 2) the company test drove cars with disconnected odometers. Does it matter if an SC question has a dual meaning? I would suspect this scenario would be wrong in most cases. Can someone point out what is wrong with this reasoning?
VP
Joined: 22 Aug 2005
Posts: 1120
Location: CA
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 103 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

03 Nov 2005, 14:11
aikido_fudoshin wrote:
I liked D) initially but I felt it was wrong because it appeared to have two meanings. 1) the auto manufacturer simply has in its posession test driven cars with disconnected odometers 2) the company test drove cars with disconnected odometers. Does it matter if an SC question has a dual meaning? I would suspect this scenario would be wrong in most cases. Can someone point out what is wrong with this reasoning?

The meaning 1) you suggested is more applicable to (D) than (E). If we relook at E:

having cars that were test-driven with disconnected odometers

the italics portion is restrictive clause. The meaning for complete statement in passage may be:

they paid > 16m in civil damages for having some cars (a subset of only cars that were test driven) with disconnected odometer.

Also, we need to find best option available. E is good.
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10670
Followers: 954

Kudos [?]: 213 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

06 Aug 2015, 09:58
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.
Manager
Joined: 21 Jun 2015
Posts: 85
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Finance
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 38

### Show Tags

07 Aug 2015, 02:18
I think it all boils down to meaning. I will only talk about D and E as most people have no problem in eliminating A,B and C. The placement of the word test-driven is important in the next two options.

(D) having test-driven cars with their odometers disconnected - Means that they paid charges because they test-drove cars with their odometer disconnected. Seems logical. If the company did this, then the whole process of test driving would be faulty and thus they will be sued if people find this out.

(E) having cars that were test-driven with disconnected odometers - Means the company had some cars that were test-driven without odomoters. The company had to pay for 'test-driving cars' and not for 'driving cars'

D is my choice.
In December of 1987 an automobile manufacturer pleaded no   [#permalink] 07 Aug 2015, 02:18
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
15 In December of 1987 an automobile manufacturer pleaded no 6 29 Mar 2011, 02:55
4 In December of 1987 an automobile manufacture pleaded no 23 25 Nov 2009, 02:03
One automobile manufacturer has announced plans to increase 5 03 Aug 2008, 00:01
In December of 1987 an automobile manufacturer pleaded no 11 15 Apr 2008, 09:02
In December of 1987 an automobile manufacturer pleaded no 19 10 Apr 2007, 15:34
Display posts from previous: Sort by