It is currently 11 Dec 2017, 23:44

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

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Last January, in an attempt to lower the number of traffic

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

Hide Tags

Current Student
User avatar
Status: Everyone is a leader. Just stop listening to others.
Joined: 22 Mar 2013
Posts: 955

Kudos [?]: 1930 [0], given: 229

Location: India
GPA: 3.51
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: Last January, in an attempt to lower the number of traffic [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 May 2014, 09:46
Why not B.

Lawyers and citizens’ groups are already protesting the law, saying it unfairly infringes on the rights of the state’s drivers.

• Prior to the “Click It or Ticket” law, motorists could not be stopped simply for not wearing a seat belt.
• The “Click It or Ticket” law violates current search and seizure laws.

How can we infer from the passage that earlier motorists could not be stopped, argument only explains that they were not ticketed earlier... we can not simply assume that motorists could not be stopped to give warning etc.
_________________

Piyush K
-----------------------
Our greatest weakness lies in giving up. The most certain way to succeed is to try just one more time. ― Thomas A. Edison
Don't forget to press--> Kudos :)
My Articles: 1. WOULD: when to use? | 2. All GMATPrep RCs (New)
Tip: Before exam a week earlier don't forget to exhaust all gmatprep problems specially for "sentence correction".

Kudos [?]: 1930 [0], given: 229

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 07 Mar 2014
Posts: 11

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 7

Concentration: Marketing, Finance
GMAT 1: 660 Q50 V29
GMAT 2: 690 Q50 V33
Re: Last January, in an attempt to lower the number of traffic [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 May 2014, 10:50
harshsingla wrote:
Last January, in an attempt to lower the number of traffic fatalities, the state legislature passed its “Click It or Ticket” law. Under the new law, motorists can be pulled over and ticketed for not wearing their seat belts, even if an additional driving infraction has not been committed. Lawyers and citizens’ groups are already protesting the law, saying it unfairly infringes on the rights of the state’s drivers. Law enforcement groups counter these claims by stating that the new regulations will save countless additional lives. Which of the following inferences is best supported by the passage above?

• Prior to the “Click It or Ticket” law, motorists could not be stopped simply for not wearing a seat belt.
• The “Click It or Ticket” law violates current search and seizure laws.
• Laws similar to “Click It or Ticket” have effectively reduced traffic fatalities in a number of states.
• The previous seatbelt laws were ineffective in saving lives.
• Law enforcement groups, rather than citizens groups, should determine how to best ensure the safety of motorists.




Answer is C . I also went for A but after that i searched this question and this is the best explanation that i found out:

option (a) says prior to the new law motorists could not be stopped. It does not say 'stopped and ticketed' as the new law shall allow. Hence maybe earlier motorists were stopped and told to wear seat belts but not ticketed.

On the other hand since the Law enforcement groups countered the claims by stating that the new regulations will save countless additional lives , there must have been some positive outcome of similar laws in effect elsewhere.

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 7

1 KUDOS received
Current Student
User avatar
Status: Everyone is a leader. Just stop listening to others.
Joined: 22 Mar 2013
Posts: 955

Kudos [?]: 1930 [1], given: 229

Location: India
GPA: 3.51
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: Last January, in an attempt to lower the number of traffic [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Jun 2014, 01:36
1
This post received
KUDOS
I would say no choice is good. all are out of scope.
In the argument it is not mentioned anywhere that other states exist even, so how can we infer that there are multiple states and they are also following similar law.

If this question had asked for strengthener rather than inference then option C would have been correct.
_________________

Piyush K
-----------------------
Our greatest weakness lies in giving up. The most certain way to succeed is to try just one more time. ― Thomas A. Edison
Don't forget to press--> Kudos :)
My Articles: 1. WOULD: when to use? | 2. All GMATPrep RCs (New)
Tip: Before exam a week earlier don't forget to exhaust all gmatprep problems specially for "sentence correction".

Kudos [?]: 1930 [1], given: 229

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 126

Kudos [?]: 96 [0], given: 101

Re: Last January, in an attempt to lower the number of traffic [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Jun 2014, 03:00
harshsingla wrote:
Last January, in an attempt to lower the number of traffic fatalities, the state legislature passed its “Click It or Ticket” law. Under the new law, motorists can be pulled over and ticketed for not wearing their seat belts, even if an additional driving infraction has not been committed. Lawyers and citizens’ groups are already protesting the law, saying it unfairly infringes on the rights of the state’s drivers. Law enforcement groups counter these claims by stating that the new regulations will save countless additional lives. Which of the following inferences is best supported by the passage above?

• Prior to the “Click It or Ticket” law, motorists could not be stopped simply for not wearing a seat belt.
• The “Click It or Ticket” law violates current search and seizure laws.
• Laws similar to “Click It or Ticket” have effectively reduced traffic fatalities in a number of states.
• The previous seatbelt laws were ineffective in saving lives.
• Law enforcement groups, rather than citizens groups, should determine how to best ensure the safety of motorists.


the OA is A. this is inference question. and must be true. how you can justify the option talking about the effect of this law in the other states?!!

Kudos [?]: 96 [0], given: 101

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 14 May 2014
Posts: 17

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 54

GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
Re: Last January, in an attempt to lower the number of traffic [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Aug 2014, 11:26
Experts, please fix the OA.

The OA should be A but is incorrectly mentioned as C.

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 54

Expert Post
MBA Section Director
User avatar
D
Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Posts: 4731

Kudos [?]: 18027 [0], given: 1990

Location: India
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Marketing (Non-Profit and Government)
Re: Last January, in an attempt to lower the number of traffic [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Nov 2014, 13:07
New Project - Reviving the hardest questions on GMAT Club. Kudos for every reply with an explanation in the first 24 hours!


Last January, in an attempt to lower the number of traffic fatalities, the state legislature passed its “Click It or Ticket” law. Under the new law, motorists can be pulled over and ticketed for not wearing their seat belts, even if an additional driving infraction has not been committed. Lawyers and citizens’ groups are already protesting the law, saying it unfairly infringes on the rights of the state’s drivers. Law enforcement groups counter these claims by stating that the new regulations will save countless additional lives. Which of the following inferences is best supported by the passage above?

• Prior to the “Click It or Ticket” law, motorists could not be stopped simply for not wearing a seat belt.

• The “Click It or Ticket” law violates current search and seizure laws.

• Laws similar to “Click It or Ticket” have effectively reduced traffic fatalities in a number of states.

• The previous seatbelt laws were ineffective in saving lives.

• Law enforcement groups, rather than citizens groups, should determine how to best ensure the safety of motorists.
_________________

My GMAT Resources
V30-V40: How to do it! | GMATPrep SC | GMATPrep CR | GMATPrep RC | Critical Reasoning Megathread | CR: Numbers and Statistics | CR: Weaken | CR: Strengthen | CR: Assumption | SC: Modifier | SC: Meaning | SC: SV Agreement | RC: Primary Purpose | PS/DS: Numbers and Inequalities | PS/DS: Combinatorics and Coordinates

My MBA Resources
Everything about the MBA Application | Over-Represented MBA woes | Fit Vs Rankings | Low GPA: What you can do | Letter of Recommendation: The Guide | Indian B Schools accepting GMAT score | Why MBA?

My Reviews
Veritas Prep Live Online

Kudos [?]: 18027 [0], given: 1990

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 05 Aug 2013
Posts: 90

Kudos [?]: 62 [0], given: 253

Location: India
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: Last January, in an attempt to lower the number of traffic [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Nov 2014, 20:17
I think the Answer should be A

The argument states that motorists can be pulled over and ticketed for not wearing their seat belts, even if an additional driving infraction has not been committed.Lawyers and citizens’ groups are already protesting the law, saying it unfairly infringes on the rights of the state’s drivers this means that previously they could not be stopped just for not wearing the seat belt.

2)this option is wrong since we are not told about current seizure laws
3)This is again incorrect since we are not told anything about this.
4) Similar to option 3 nothing is mentioned about this in argument so incorrect as well
5)Again this option is incorrect since argument doesnt say which group should or should not decide .



Thanks
AK
Please press Kudos if the explanation added to your knowledge :-D

Kudos [?]: 62 [0], given: 253

2 KUDOS received
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 05 Sep 2010
Posts: 831

Kudos [?]: 292 [2], given: 61

GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: Last January, in an attempt to lower the number of traffic [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Nov 2014, 03:47
2
This post received
KUDOS
this question seems WRONG !!

why A CANNOT BE answer?
reasoning:
A says: Prior to the “Click It or Ticket” law, motorists could not be stopped simply for not wearing a seat belt.--------------->this CANNOT be inferred as passage says that "Under the new law, motorists can be pulled over and ticketed for not wearing their seat belts"------------>this does not mean that under "previous law" the motorist cannot be PULLED. there can be a situation that under "previous law" the motorist is pulled but is left after giving a warning and NOW under the "NEW LAW" the motorist can be pulled and finned as well

Kudos [?]: 292 [2], given: 61

Current Student
User avatar
Joined: 03 Feb 2013
Posts: 943

Kudos [?]: 1087 [0], given: 548

Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Strategy
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V44
GPA: 3.88
WE: Engineering (Computer Software)
Reviews Badge
Re: Last January, in an attempt to lower the number of traffic [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Nov 2014, 05:41
Last January, in an attempt to lower the number of traffic fatalities, the state legislature passed its “Click It or Ticket” law. Under the new law, motorists can be pulled over and ticketed for not wearing their seat belts, even if an additional driving infraction has not been committed. Lawyers and citizens’ groups are already protesting the law, saying it unfairly infringes on the rights of the state’s drivers. Law enforcement groups counter these claims by stating that the new regulations will save countless additional lives. Which of the following inferences is best supported by the passage above?

• Prior to the “Click It or Ticket” law, motorists could not be stopped simply for not wearing a seat belt. - This cannot be inferred.
The motorists might be stopped under the new law and may be given an warning. The passage says about "additional driving infraction". After 2nd infraction, the motorist could be fined.


• The “Click It or Ticket” law violates current search and seizure laws. - Can be inferred as "Lawyers and citizens’ groups are already protesting the law, saying it unfairly infringes on the rights of the state’s drivers."

• Laws similar to “Click It or Ticket” have effectively reduced traffic fatalities in a number of states. - cannot be inferred.

• The previous seat belt laws were ineffective in saving lives. - Cannot be inferred as it might happen that previous law has decreased the accidents by 50%. The rest 50% can be reduced by implementing new law.

• Law enforcement groups, rather than citizens groups, should determine how to best ensure the safety of motorist - Cannot be inferred.
_________________

Thanks,
Kinjal
My Debrief : http://gmatclub.com/forum/hardwork-never-gets-unrewarded-for-ever-189267.html#p1449379
My Application Experience : http://gmatclub.com/forum/hardwork-never-gets-unrewarded-for-ever-189267-40.html#p1516961
Linkedin : https://www.linkedin.com/in/kinjal-das/

Please click on Kudos, if you think the post is helpful

Kudos [?]: 1087 [0], given: 548

1 KUDOS received
Verbal Forum Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 16 Jun 2012
Posts: 1124

Kudos [?]: 3600 [1], given: 123

Location: United States
Premium Member
Re: Last January, in an attempt to lower the number of traffic [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Nov 2014, 15:37
1
This post received
KUDOS
The question is flawed.

Everybody studying GMAT knows the cause and effect relation. The stimulus is very explicit to say the new law, motorists can be pulled over and ticketed for not wearing their seat belts. KEY word is "and". Option A says "Prior to the “Click It or Ticket” law, motorists could not be stopped simply for not wearing a seat belt". It can't be inferred from the stimulus. What if prior the new law, motorists COULD be stopped, but NOT be ticketed. That clearly shows A is not the correct answer.

Regards,
_________________

Please +1 KUDO if my post helps. Thank you.

"Designing cars consumes you; it has a hold on your spirit which is incredibly powerful. It's not something you can do part time, you have do it with all your heart and soul or you're going to get it wrong."

Chris Bangle - Former BMW Chief of Design.

Kudos [?]: 3600 [1], given: 123

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 18 Nov 2013
Posts: 77

Kudos [?]: 19 [0], given: 7

Location: India
GMAT Date: 12-26-2014
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: Last January, in an attempt to lower the number of traffic [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Nov 2014, 00:53
I chose option A randomly. But, to be honest, I could eliminate all the answer choices with equal reason. :o

Kudos [?]: 19 [0], given: 7

Non-Human User
User avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10159

Kudos [?]: 275 [0], given: 0

Premium Member
Re: Last January, in an attempt to lower the number of traffic [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Feb 2016, 08:19
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 [?]: 275 [0], given: 0

Verbal Forum Moderator
User avatar
V
Status: Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Posts: 1750

Kudos [?]: 1061 [0], given: 89

Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GPA: 3.2
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: Last January, in an attempt to lower the number of traffic [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Jan 2017, 10:52
harshsingla wrote:
Last January, in an attempt to lower the number of traffic fatalities, the state legislature passed its “Click It or Ticket” law. Under the new law, motorists can be pulled over and ticketed for not wearing their seat belts, even if an additional driving infraction has not been committed. Lawyers and citizens’ groups are already protesting the law, saying it unfairly infringes on the rights of the state’s drivers. Law enforcement groups counter these claims by stating that the new regulations will save countless additional lives. Which of the following inferences is best supported by the passage above?

• Prior to the “Click It or Ticket” law, motorists could not be stopped simply for not wearing a seat belt.
• The “Click It or Ticket” law violates current search and seizure laws.
• Laws similar to “Click It or Ticket” have effectively reduced traffic fatalities in a number of states.
• The previous seatbelt laws were ineffective in saving lives.
• Law enforcement groups, rather than citizens groups, should determine how to best ensure the safety of motorists.


The argument explains that the new “Click It or Ticket” law is generating controversy. Under the new law, drivers can be cited for not wearing their seat belts, even in the absence of an additional driving infraction. Any acceptable inference must be directly supported by evidence from the text.

(A) CORRECT. The entire controversy is based on the new law that allows motorists to be cited, even in the absence of an additional infraction. Thus, it follows that prior to the passage of this law, an additional driving infraction must have been necessary in order to stop and cite an individual for not wearing a seat belt.
(B) Search and seizure laws are never mentioned in the text. This answer choice is outside the scope of the argument.
(C) Laws in other states are never mentioned in the text. This answer choice is outside the scope of the argument.
(D) Though the text states that the new regulation might save countless additional lives, the effectiveness of the previous laws are never mentioned.
(E) No preference is stated between law enforcement groups and the citizens' groups. This answer choice is simply an opinion that is unsubstantiated by the text.
_________________

When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it. - Henry Ford
The Moment You Think About Giving Up, Think Of The Reason Why You Held On So Long
+1 Kudos if you find this post helpful

Kudos [?]: 1061 [0], given: 89

Director
Director
avatar
S
Joined: 12 Nov 2016
Posts: 793

Kudos [?]: 39 [0], given: 166

Re: Last January, in an attempt to lower the number of traffic [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Aug 2017, 20:06
souvik101990 wrote:
New Project - Reviving the hardest questions on GMAT Club. Kudos for every reply with an explanation in the first 24 hours!


Last January, in an attempt to lower the number of traffic fatalities, the state legislature passed its “Click It or Ticket” law. Under the new law, motorists can be pulled over and ticketed for not wearing their seat belts, even if an additional driving infraction has not been committed. Lawyers and citizens’ groups are already protesting the law, saying it unfairly infringes on the rights of the state’s drivers. Law enforcement groups counter these claims by stating that the new regulations will save countless additional lives. Which of the following inferences is best supported by the passage above?

A. Prior to the “Click It or Ticket” law, motorists could not be stopped simply for not wearing a seat belt. This is heavily implied from the part of the stimulus that reads "even if additional driving infraction has not been committed" This implies that under the new law drivers can be pulled over solely on the basis of not wearing their seatbelts. So this likely wasn't the case before

B. The “Click It or Ticket” law violates current search and seizure laws. How do we know this? Just because lawyers and citizen's groups are complaining and trying to challenge the law? What if the lawyers are trying to find some other rule that the new law violates because it doesn't violate search and seizure laws? We cannot simply assume that is illegitimate because there is opposition to it.

C. Laws similar to “Click It or Ticket” have effectively reduced traffic fatalities in a number of states.totally unsupported what in the passage supports this?

D. The previous seatbelt laws were ineffective in saving lives. Maybe. Or maybe legislation has just become more rigid

E. Law enforcement groups, rather than citizens groups, should determine how to best ensure the safety of motorists.
this makes a suggestion that can be equally supported by either side

A

Kudos [?]: 39 [0], given: 166

Re: Last January, in an attempt to lower the number of traffic   [#permalink] 16 Aug 2017, 20:06

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 34 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

Last January, in an attempt to lower the number of traffic

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


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| 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®.