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

It is currently 18 Nov 2019, 17:15

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 contest to

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

Hide Tags

Find Similar Topics 
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 06 Jul 2005
Posts: 100
Location: Bangalore, India
In December of 1987 an automobile manufacturer pleaded no contest to  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 20 Dec 2018, 09:38
10
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  85% (hard)

Question Stats:

38% (01:27) correct 62% (01:39) wrong based on 1021 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

Originally posted by rahuluec on 02 Nov 2005, 19:41.
Last edited by Bunuel on 20 Dec 2018, 09:38, edited 1 time in total.
Renamed the topic and edited the question.
Most Helpful Expert Reply
e-GMAT Representative
User avatar
P
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 2913
Re: In December of 1987 an automobile manufacturer pleaded no contest to  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Jan 2013, 10:18
5
4
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
_________________
General Discussion
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 20 Oct 2009
Posts: 17
Re: In December of 1987 an automobile manufacturer pleaded no contest to  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 29 Nov 2009, 02:09
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


I honestly believe that the answer here should be B. We need the past perfect to indicate an action occured before another event in the past. the test drive took place before the automobile manufacture pleaded no contest to criminal charges. other answer choices made it look like the test drive took place simultaniously with the pleading

Originally posted by GMATFIGHTER on 28 Nov 2009, 09:17.
Last edited by GMATFIGHTER on 29 Nov 2009, 02:09, edited 1 time in total.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 20 Oct 2009
Posts: 17
Re: In December of 1987 an automobile manufacturer pleaded no contest to  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Nov 2009, 02:18
1
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.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 30 Sep 2009
Posts: 13
Re: In December of 1987 an automobile manufacturer pleaded no contest to  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Feb 2010, 03:09
Here is my reasoning.

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 -> Sounds like manufacturer pays 16M for the cars
(B) cars that it had test-driven with their disconnected
odometers -> Sounds like manufacturer pays 16M for the cars
(C) its cars having been test-driven with disconnected
odometers -> Sounds like manufacturer pays 16M for its cars

We are left with D and E
(D) having test-driven cars with their odometers
disconnected
(E) having cars that were test-driven with disconnected
odometers

I choose D as it is more direct to convey the idea that Manufacturer is fined because of his action of test-driving the cars without the device on.

Please comment
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 29 Jul 2010
Posts: 21
Re: In December of 1987 an automobile manufacturer pleaded no contest to  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Sep 2010, 08:20
2
(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
Retired Moderator
User avatar
V
Status: enjoying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 5186
Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Re: In December of 1987 an automobile manufacturer pleaded no contest to  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Mar 2011, 07:17
5
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’
_________________
Are you stuck around 630? If you can't pole-vault above 630, spare 30 hours and you can fly on top.
"Winners never quit and quitters never win". (+919884544509)
Manager
Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 21 Jun 2015
Posts: 103
Location: India
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Finance
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V35
GMAT 2: 700 Q49 V35
GPA: 2.61
Re: In December of 1987 an automobile manufacturer pleaded no contest to  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Aug 2015, 02:18
1
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.
Intern
Intern
User avatar
Joined: 11 Jan 2014
Posts: 25
Location: Viet Nam
Concentration: Accounting, Finance
GPA: 3.17
WE: Analyst (Accounting)
Re: In December of 1987 an automobile manufacturer pleaded no contest to  [#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.
Retired Moderator
User avatar
V
Status: enjoying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 5186
Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Re: In December of 1987 an automobile manufacturer pleaded no contest to  [#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.
_________________
Are you stuck around 630? If you can't pole-vault above 630, spare 30 hours and you can fly on top.
"Winners never quit and quitters never win". (+919884544509)

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.
Math Expert
avatar
V
Joined: 02 Aug 2009
Posts: 8187
Re: In December of 1987 an automobile manufacturer pleaded no contest to  [#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
_________________
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 19 May 2018
Posts: 50
Re: In December of 1987 an automobile manufacturer pleaded no contest to  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Jan 2019, 23:42
What this sentence is supposed to mean is that the automobile manufacturer agreed to pay damages for odometer tampering, specifically, for test driving cars that had their odometers disconnected. That is to say, for an action. Options A B and C do not refer to an action, they refer to the cars themselves. They all mean that the manufacturer agreed to pay damages for the cars, themselves. This is obviously a meaning error. So these three can be discarded. E can also be discarded for changing the meaning. ‘having cars’ implies that the manufacturer agreed to pay damages just for having cars that were test driven with their odometers disconnected. The only one that conveys the right meaning is option D.
Non-Human User
User avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 6757
Re: In December of 1987 an automobile manufacturer pleaded no  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Nov 2019, 07:51
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.
_________________
GMAT Club Bot
Re: In December of 1987 an automobile manufacturer pleaded no   [#permalink] 15 Nov 2019, 07:51
Display posts from previous: Sort by

In December of 1987 an automobile manufacturer pleaded no contest to

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





Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne