It is currently 17 Jan 2018, 19:45

### 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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# More than a year ago, the city announced that police would

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

SVP
Joined: 06 Nov 2014
Posts: 1904

Kudos [?]: 562 [0], given: 23

Re: More than a year ago, the city announced that police would [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Oct 2015, 19:33
The conclusion says that since the speeding tickets are not reduced, police has not diverted attention to other activities.
Option E hits this directly by saying that police cannot do two activities simultaneously.

Kudos [?]: 562 [0], given: 23

Intern
Joined: 30 Nov 2014
Posts: 6

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 15

GMAT 1: 640 Q49 V27
Re: More than a year ago, the city announced that police would [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Oct 2015, 18:14
(A) every member of the police force is qualified to work on combating the city‟s drug problem-- out of scope as we see the conclusion
(B) drug-related crime is not as serious a problem for the city as the police chief claims it is--problem and resources being diverted are two different things.
(C) writing speeding tickets should be as important a priority for the city as combating drug-related crime-- priority has nothing to do with resources
(D) the police could be cracking down on illegally parked cars and combating the drug problem without having to reduce writing speeding tickets -- Not sure why this is wrong??
(E) the police cannot continue writing as many speeding tickets as ever while diverting resources to combating drug-related crime Not sure why this is correct.

Some one please Explain D and E simultaneously?

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 15

Manager
Joined: 15 May 2010
Posts: 188

Kudos [?]: 35 [0], given: 65

Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
WE: Engineering (Manufacturing)
Re: More than a year ago, the city announced that police would [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Oct 2015, 18:55
ayushi219 wrote:
(A) every member of the police force is qualified to work on combating the city‟s drug problem-- out of scope as we see the conclusion
(B) drug-related crime is not as serious a problem for the city as the police chief claims it is--problem and resources being diverted are two different things.
(C) writing speeding tickets should be as important a priority for the city as combating drug-related crime-- priority has nothing to do with resources
(D) the police could be cracking down on illegally parked cars and combating the drug problem without having to reduce writing speeding tickets -- Not sure why this is wrong??
(E) the police cannot continue writing as many speeding tickets as ever while diverting resources to combating drug-related crime Not sure why this is correct.

Some one please Explain D and E simultaneously?

ayushi219

D goes against the argument. Argument says that no crack down on illegally parked cars , no combating drug problem happened.

E connects the premises and conclusion well.

If you negate the option E, you will find

the police can continue writing as many speeding tickets as ever while diverting resources to combating drug-related crime and the conclusion is destroyed.

Kudos [?]: 35 [0], given: 65

SVP
Joined: 06 Nov 2014
Posts: 1904

Kudos [?]: 562 [0], given: 23

Re: More than a year ago, the city announced that police would [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Oct 2015, 19:16
ayushi219 wrote:
(A) every member of the police force is qualified to work on combating the city‟s drug problem-- out of scope as we see the conclusion
(B) drug-related crime is not as serious a problem for the city as the police chief claims it is--problem and resources being diverted are two different things.
(C) writing speeding tickets should be as important a priority for the city as combating drug-related crime-- priority has nothing to do with resources
(D) the police could be cracking down on illegally parked cars and combating the drug problem without having to reduce writing speeding tickets -- Not sure why this is wrong??
(E) the police cannot continue writing as many speeding tickets as ever while diverting resources to combating drug-related crime Not sure why this is correct.

Some one please Explain D and E simultaneously?

Hi ayushi219,

Option D goes against our argument. the argument says that the police is unable to track down illegally parked cars because they are busy with the drug related crime.
Whereas this option says that police has the ability to do all the three things simultaneously. Certainly not the assumption we are looking for.

Regarding Option E,
The conclusion says that since the speeding tickets are not reduced, police has not diverted attention to other activities.
Option E hits this directly by saying that police cannot do two activities simultaneously.

Does this help?

Kudos [?]: 562 [0], given: 23

Senior Manager
Joined: 02 Dec 2014
Posts: 370

Kudos [?]: 99 [0], given: 349

Location: Russian Federation
Concentration: General Management, Economics
GMAT 1: 640 Q44 V33
WE: Sales (Telecommunications)
Re: More than a year ago, the city announced that police would [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Jul 2016, 11:40
It took me 1.50. But only D and E are real contenders. That was my problem.
_________________

"Are you gangsters?" - "No we are Russians!"

Kudos [?]: 99 [0], given: 349

Verbal Forum Moderator
Status: Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Posts: 1890

Kudos [?]: 1128 [0], given: 93

Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
Schools: Kelley '20, ISB '19
GPA: 3.2
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: More than a year ago, the city announced that police would [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Dec 2017, 03:10
Fistail wrote:
More than a year ago, the city announced that police would crack down on illegally parked cars and that resources would be diverted from writing speeding tickets to ticketing illegally parked cars. But no crackdown has taken place. The police chief claims that resources have had to be diverted from writing speeding tickets to combating the city’s staggering drug problem. Yet the police are still writing as many speeding tickets as ever. Therefore, the excuse about resources being tied up in fighting drug-related crime simply is not true.

The conclusion in the passage depends on the assumption that

(A) every member of the police force is qualified to work on combating the city’s drug problem
(B) drug-related crime is not as serious a problem for the city as the police chief claims it is
(C) writing speeding tickets should be as important a priority for the city as combating drug-related crime
(D) the police could be cracking down on illegally parked cars and combating the drug problem without having to reduce writing speeding tickets
(E) the police cannot continue writing as many speeding tickets as ever while diverting resources to combating drug-related crime

Source: LSAT

-The police are still writing as many speeding tickets as ever
-It cannot be true that resources are being tied up in fighting drug-related crimes

Pre-thinking - The gap is that, just because there is no decrease in writing speeding tickets, does not demand that there is not a decrease in the resources utilized to write those speeding tickets. What if the speeding tickets are easier to come by now? What if there have been a million more occurrences of speeding? What if the police are being less forgiving about speeding tickets so that they are now writing speeding tickets for going 2mph over but before they were not? Who knows!

(A) "Qualified" doesn't tell us that much. Also, this does not mention speeding tickets which is a huge red flag. Does every member of the police need to be qualified for this conclusion to make sense? Nope. This is just simply not necessary and it does nothing to bridge the gap at all.

(B) So what if it is not as serious of a problem? We still need to say something about the issue of speeding tickets, which is not said here! If we negate this, it really doesn't do anything to the argument.

(C) The big red flag here is "should be." We don't need to conclude anything about what the police force "should be" doing. This is simply not necessary.

(D) This actually might be leaning towards the opposite of what we want. This is basically saying that the police can do both! They can both crack down on the drug problem and not "have to reduce writing speeding tickets."

(E) This is correct. If you try to negate it, it destroys the argument. This is helping the conclusion because, while the conclusion says that it is not possible to write as many speed tickets while diverting resources, this answer choice is also saying that.

"The police can continue writing as many speeding tickets as ever..." -- Negation test
_________________

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 [?]: 1128 [0], given: 93

Re: More than a year ago, the city announced that police would   [#permalink] 13 Dec 2017, 03:10

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 26 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by