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

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

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.

I had gone with A.

The passage states that '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.'
So we can infer that
'Prior to the “Click It or Ticket” law, motorists could not be stopped simply for not wearing a seat belt.'

(C)Laws similar to “Click It or Ticket” have effectively reduced traffic fatalities in a number of states.
Information about other states is not given in the passage. So I don't see how C can be the correct option.

Is there an OE?

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

Hello Experts,

I am not clear why A is the OA. We can also infer that the motorists can be stopped but they can't be ticketed as per the previous law.
Any suggestion how to proceed with this question?

Hi

The stimulus states: 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.

This can be interpreted in a few ways:

i) Earlier laws did not allow for pulling over for just not wearing seat belts.
ii) Earlier laws did not allow for ticketing for just not wearing seat belts.
iii) Earlier laws allowed for neither pulling over nor ticketing for just not wearing seat belts.

Any one of these could be an inference based on the premises stated in the passage. The only one among these present among the answer options is (i) in option (A) so that has to be the best inference among the options given. The scenario you have stated, while a valid inference, is not present among the answer options.

Hope this helps.

I agree with you on this one, this question from Manhattan is very "not Manhattan".

"could not be stopped" in A was big no for me. If it were "could not be stopped LEGALLY", then i might have picked A. I mean we can't infer something 100% sure of that in A option.