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

 It is currently 22 Sep 2019, 05:18

### 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

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

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 03 Dec 2012
Posts: 191
Re: Last January, in an attempt to lower the number of traffic  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Nov 2013, 04:16
OA is A. A seems the best among the lot. It's still not convincing. But that's what the GMAT wants us to find.
Manager
Joined: 03 Dec 2012
Posts: 191
Re: Last January, in an attempt to lower the number of traffic  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Nov 2013, 21:23
ramannanda9 wrote:
mohnish104 wrote:
OA is A. A seems the best among the lot. It's still not convincing. But that's what the GMAT wants us to find.

IMO D,
Not sure about A primarily because it says that motorists were not stopped earlier. Well they could still be stopped for not wearing the seatbelt, its just that they were not ticketed.

After all the law is "Click It or Ticket".

How can we assume that the earlier laws were ineffective. The premise states that the new law will save 'countless additional lives'. The current law might still be saving a lot of lives. It might not be lets 50% successful or even 80% successful. May be the 50%/20% not saved is the countless numbers that the premise is talking about. Based on this we cannot say that they weren't effective. They may, they may not. There is no certain way of saying.
Manager
Status: Student
Joined: 26 Aug 2013
Posts: 168
Location: France
Concentration: Finance, General Management
Schools: EMLYON FT'16
GMAT 1: 650 Q47 V32
GPA: 3.44
Re: Last January, in an attempt to lower the number of traffic  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Nov 2013, 10:19
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.

Was quite surprise with the OA, "in a number of states" is out of scope and wordy (it could be in only 60%...)

D and E are for sure out

B is not correct because "current search and seizure laws" are clearly not stated in the passage...

Leaving with A...

_________________
Think outside the box
Intern
Joined: 14 Nov 2013
Posts: 12
Re: Last January, in an attempt to lower the number of traffic  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Apr 2014, 14:39
I am not sure how they do it but please change the OA to A as A is the correct answer. It gets frustrating when incorrect OA's are posted.
Director
Status: Everyone is a leader. Just stop listening to others.
Joined: 22 Mar 2013
Posts: 714
Location: India
GPA: 3.51
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: Last January, in an attempt to lower the number of traffic  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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".
Intern
Joined: 07 Mar 2014
Posts: 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

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.
Manager
Joined: 27 Jul 2012
Posts: 98
Re: Last January, in an attempt to lower the number of traffic  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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?!!
Intern
Joined: 14 May 2014
Posts: 13
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
Re: Last January, in an attempt to lower the number of traffic  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Aug 2014, 11:26

The OA should be A but is incorrectly mentioned as C.
Current Student
Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Posts: 4243
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

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.
_________________
Manager
Joined: 05 Aug 2013
Posts: 89
Location: India
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: Last January, in an attempt to lower the number of traffic  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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
5)Again this option is incorrect since argument doesnt say which group should or should not decide .

Thanks
AK
Director
Joined: 03 Feb 2013
Posts: 834
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Strategy
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V44
GPA: 3.88
WE: Engineering (Computer Software)
Re: Last January, in an attempt to lower the number of traffic  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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 Application Experience : http://gmatclub.com/forum/hardwork-never-gets-unrewarded-for-ever-189267-40.html#p1516961

Manager
Joined: 18 Nov 2013
Posts: 62
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

26 Nov 2014, 00:53
I chose option A randomly. But, to be honest, I could eliminate all the answer choices with equal reason.
Verbal Forum Moderator
Status: Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Posts: 2385
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
Schools: Kelley '20, ISB '19
GPA: 3.2
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: Last January, in an attempt to lower the number of traffic  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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
Director
Joined: 12 Nov 2016
Posts: 704
Location: United States
Schools: Yale '18
GMAT 1: 650 Q43 V37
GRE 1: Q157 V158
GPA: 2.66
Re: Last January, in an attempt to lower the number of traffic  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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
Manager
Joined: 20 Mar 2015
Posts: 57
Location: United States
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
WE: Design (Manufacturing)
Re: Last January, in an attempt to lower the number of traffic  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Feb 2018, 10:47
option A does not state that the motorists were ticketed as well. It may be a case that motorists, in the past, were stopped but not ticketed.
Manager
Joined: 06 Oct 2015
Posts: 87
Re: Last January, in an attempt to lower the number of traffic  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Mar 2018, 07:45
If A is the answer then the question is more like an assumption question and less like an inference question
Verbal Forum Moderator
Status: Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Posts: 2385
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
Schools: Kelley '20, ISB '19
GPA: 3.2
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: Last January, in an attempt to lower the number of traffic  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Jun 2018, 07:34
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?

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

OA -A. Prior to the “Click It or Ticket” law, motorists could not be stopped simply for not wearing a seat belt. - Can we infer A based on the highlighted part of the argument ?
As per the highlighted part, maybe even before this “Click It or Ticket” law , motorists could be pulled over but could not be ticketed (only a warning could be given)

mcelroytutoring , AjiteshArun , GMATNinja , mikemcgarry , egmat , RonPurewal , DmitryFarber , MagooshExpert , ccooley , daagh , other experts-- please enlighten
_________________
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
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 30 Oct 2017
Posts: 236
Re: Last January, in an attempt to lower the number of traffic  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Jun 2018, 17:37
Skywalker18 wrote:
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?

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

OA -A. Prior to the “Click It or Ticket” law, motorists could not be stopped simply for not wearing a seat belt. - Can we infer A based on the highlighted part of the argument ?
As per the highlighted part, maybe even before this “Click It or Ticket” law , motorists could be pulled over but could not be ticketed (only a warning could be given)

mcelroytutoring , AjiteshArun , GMATNinja , mikemcgarry , egmat , RonPurewal , DmitryFarber , MagooshExpert , ccooley , daagh , other experts-- please enlighten

Hi Skywalker18!

Yes, we can infer (A) based on the highlighted part. That sentence implies that the fact that motorists can be stopped for not wearing a seatbelt is something new, introduced by this legislation. There's no reason that we should assume that police were just going around and pulling people over without any reason to give them a ticket (a warning is useless if the police can't then give a ticket if the driver ignores the warning; what is the warning for then?). It also would not make sense for there to be protests about right infringements of the new law if motorists could have been stopped just for not wearing a seatbelt beforehand, regardless of whether they could be ticketed or not. So (A) is the best answer here.

Hope that helps!
-Carolyn
_________________
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 5641
Re: Last January, in an attempt to lower the number of traffic  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Aug 2019, 06:54
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.
_________________
Re: Last January, in an attempt to lower the number of traffic   [#permalink] 10 Aug 2019, 06:54

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 39 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by