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.
Shraddha
_________________

Everything you need to ace the GMAT and more
Basics of the GMAT
GMAT Exam Strategies
GMAT Study Plans
GMAT Verbal Subject Matter
GMAT AWA & IR

| '4 out of Top 5' Instructors on gmatclub | 70 point improvement guarantee | www.e-gmat.com

I actually just remembered an important point leading me to agree that the answer here should be D. The construction "having + past participle" also indicates an action in the past before the main verb of the sentence. The main verbs of this sentence are "pleaded" and "agreed", so "having test driven" took place before the "pleaded." Another mistake I made with option B is that "that" would imply that there are other cars that the manufacturer didn't test drive. We don't know whether the manufacturer test drove most of these cars or a small number of them. I think it would make sense that he's in court because he did a mistake when he test drove ALL the cars. So option D says "having test driven cars" implies that we're talking about all the cars that he had were tested.

another mistake I've picked up from option B is that it has the "it." I believe there could be a typo in the question because I think it should be "manufacturer" rather than "manufacture." the company itself can plead in court, but it's rather a person who can do that, so the "it" in option B is simply wrong.

(A) cars that were test-driven with their odometers disconnected - the auto manufacturer agreed to pay not for cars..but for driving the cars with odometer disconnected
(B) cars that it had test-driven with their disconnected odometers - it and the Error remains
(C) its cars having been test-driven with disconnected odometers -its
(D) having test-driven cars with their odometers disconnected - correct.
(E) having cars that were test-driven with disconnected odometers - Same as with A

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.

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 but not really understand it."-- a quote
No one knows this better than a GMAT student does.
Narendran +9198845 44509

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.
_________________

-
April 2018: New Forum dedicated to Verbal Strategies, Guides, and Resources