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

It is currently 23 May 2019, 22:10

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

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

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

Hide Tags

 
Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 03 May 2007
Posts: 770
Schools: University of Chicago, Wharton School
More than a year ago, the city announced that police would crack down  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 14 Mar 2019, 21:14
11
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  35% (medium)

Question Stats:

72% (01:56) correct 28% (02:12) wrong based on 563 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

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

Originally posted by Fistail on 12 Sep 2007, 23:33.
Last edited by Bunuel on 14 Mar 2019, 21:14, edited 3 times in total.
Renamed the topic and edited the question.
Most Helpful Community Reply
Verbal Forum Moderator
User avatar
V
Status: Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Posts: 2291
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
Schools: Kelley '20, ISB '19
GPA: 3.2
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: More than a year ago, the city announced that police would crack down  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Dec 2017, 04:10
3
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
General Discussion
Director
Director
avatar
Status: There is always something new !!
Affiliations: PMI,QAI Global,eXampleCG
Joined: 08 May 2009
Posts: 966
Re: More than a year ago, the city announced that police would crack down  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Apr 2011, 02:49
1
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.

------- Conclusion states that since the number of speeding tickets is the same,the resources being tied up for combating drug related crimes 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 -- Misses the point. POE.

(B) drug-related crime is not as serious a problem for the city as the police chief claims it is -- Nowhere it is mentioned in the argument.POE.

(C) writing speeding tickets should be as important a priority for the city as combating drug-related crime -- Priority isn't mentioned in the premises. POE.

(D) the police could be cracking down on illegally parked cars and combating the drug problem without having to reduce writing speeding tickets -- Negating this,actually strengthens the conclusion that resources are being held up.Hence POE.

(E) the police cannot continue writing as many speeding tickets as ever while diverting resources to combating drug-related crime - Implies that if resources are being held up for drug related crimes,the number of speeding tickets issued will decrease. Hence OA.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 05 Nov 2012
Posts: 433
Concentration: Technology, Other
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: More than a year ago, the city announced that police would crack down  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Apr 2015, 01:53
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
Negate: the police can continue writing as many speeding tickets as ever while diverting resources to combating drug-related crime
SVP
SVP
avatar
B
Joined: 06 Nov 2014
Posts: 1877
Re: More than a year ago, the city announced that police would crack down  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Oct 2015, 20:33
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.

Hence the correct answer
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 01 Dec 2014
Posts: 5
GMAT 1: 640 Q49 V27
Re: More than a year ago, the city announced that police would crack down  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Oct 2015, 19:14
(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?
SVP
SVP
avatar
B
Joined: 06 Nov 2014
Posts: 1877
Re: More than a year ago, the city announced that police would crack down  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Oct 2015, 20:16
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?
Retired Moderator
avatar
G
Joined: 26 Nov 2012
Posts: 590
Re: More than a year ago, the city announced that police would crack down  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Sep 2016, 07:33
Devesh29 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


Took 2:15 mins.

Given that police would crack down on illegally parked cars and resources are diverted from speeding tickets to illegally parked cars.

But till nothing happened and police continue to write speeding tickets and they are also fighting drug-related crimes. But the conclusion is that Police are not dealing crimes but they are writing tickets.

Prephrase : Police would be doing both or the same police force would be ticketing and also taking care of drug related crimes.

Only option E is as per our assumption and if we negate the option the police can continue writing as many speeding tickets as ever while diverting resources to combating drug-related crime...i.e. they can handle both...thus the conclusion can be weakened.

Option A to D, doesn't deal as per the argument.

Hope this clears.
IIMA, IIMC School Moderator
User avatar
V
Joined: 04 Sep 2016
Posts: 1338
Location: India
WE: Engineering (Other)
CAT Tests
Re: More than a year ago, the city announced that police would crack down  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Sep 2018, 22:16
generis VeritasKarishma nightblade354

Please help me with correct negation here:

Quote:
The conclusion in the passage depends on the assumption that

What MUST BE TRUE for the conclusion to be valid?

Quote:
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.


Conclusion: The excuse about resources being tied up in fighting drug-related crime simply is not true.

Premise:
Police chief has (say 100) policemen to ticket people who speed cars.
Earlier, city decided to divert above policemen to ticket people who illegally park their cars.

However, recent happenings do not show any evidence of people ticketed for illegally parking their cars.

The Police chef now defends his men: Drug abuse are on rise, so I had to divert my men to combat it.

The people are smarter, they say: Oh if these 100 people were diverted to stop drugs abuse, how come the number of people caught for speeding cars HAVE NOT decreased. So you are showing up an excuse to not issue tickets to people who park their cars illegally.

Quote:
(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

Completely out of scope, qualification of force and seriousness of issue at hand is now way related
to the argument.

Quote:
(C) writing speeding tickets should be as important a priority for the city as combating drug-related crime

I form a bad habit discard options with should.
Reason: An assumption MUST BE TRUE. No one is asking the author's opinion.

Quote:
(D) the police could be cracking down on illegally parked cars and combating the drug problem without having to reduce writing speeding tickets

Do we negate main verb of the sentence? Please advise on below negation and its effect on conclusion;
Option 1:
the police could NOT be cracking down on illegally parked cars and combating the drug problem without having to reduce writing speeding tickets
Option 2:
the police could be cracking down on illegally parked cars and combating the drug problem while simultaneously having to reduce writing speeding tickets

Quote:
(E) the police cannot continue writing as many speeding tickets as ever while diverting resources to combating drug-related crime

Presenting two negated versions:

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

But above defeats my evidence itself, which says: no of speeding tickets are the same.
An assumption is about finding a missing link of evidence, not destroying the evidence itself.

the police cannot continue writing as many speeding tickets as ever while not diverting resources to combating drug-related crime
I found it a complex to review for an effect on the conclusion.
_________________
It's the journey that brings us happiness not the destination.

Feeling stressed, you are not alone!!
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
D
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 9234
Location: Pune, India
Re: More than a year ago, the city announced that police would crack down  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Sep 2018, 23:13
3
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


Premises:
City announced that police would divert resources from writing speeding tickets to ticketing illegally parked cars.
But no crackdown has taken place.
The police 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.

Conclusion
Therefore, the excuse about resources being tied up in fighting drug-related crime simply is not true.

The author is concluding that the police are not engaged in drug-related crime simply because the number of speeding tickets are same as before.
The author is assuming that it is not possible to issue same number of speeding tickets after diverting resources. (but it may not be so - the police could employ more effective strategies of issues speeding tickets needing fewer officers)

(A) every member of the police force is qualified to work on combating the city’s drug problem
Irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether EVERY member is qualified to combat drug problem or not.

(B) drug-related crime is not as serious a problem for the city as the police chief claims it is
Irrelevant. We are not judging whether he resources should be diverted to drug problem.

(C) writing speeding tickets should be as important a priority for the city as combating drug-related crime
Irrelevant. Again, we are not judging the relative importance of various problems.

(D) the police could be cracking down on illegally parked cars and combating the drug problem without having to reduce writing speeding tickets
The premises tell us that illegally parked car problem is not being combated. Since this runs against the given premise, it can obviously not be something the author assumes i.e. it can't be a missing premise.

(E) the police cannot continue writing as many speeding tickets as ever while diverting resources to combating drug-related crime
Negation - the police CAN continue writing as many speeding tickets as ever while diverting resources to combating drug-related crime
If the police can continue writing as many tickets as before (by being more effective) after diverting resources, our conclusion falls. Hence this is the assumption.


Similar question: https://gmatclub.com/forum/a-month-ago- ... it=project
_________________
Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

Learn more about how Veritas Prep can help you achieve a great GMAT score by checking out their GMAT Prep Options >
IIMA, IIMC School Moderator
User avatar
V
Joined: 04 Sep 2016
Posts: 1338
Location: India
WE: Engineering (Other)
CAT Tests
Re: More than a year ago, the city announced that police would crack down  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Sep 2018, 23:39
Thanks VeritasKarishma for your two cents. The approach you pointed out in the similar question helps me more than negation.

Can correct question to ask to find an assumption be:
Given my premises are true, WHAT ELSE DO I NEED for my conclusion to be valid.

On similar lines, can I assume that:
The police chief has a fixed number of men at his disposal and if frees his few men out of ticketing people engaged in speeding cars
to counter drug abuse, then these men will not sit idle.

The efficiency of police staff (new information in the argument as you bought) led to same no of ticketing for speeding.
In your negated version, I still could not get how can you claim:
the excuse about resources being tied up in fighting drug-related crime simply is true
The efficiency is pertaining to ticketing for speeding and claim talks about fighting drug-related crime.
_________________
It's the journey that brings us happiness not the destination.

Feeling stressed, you are not alone!!
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
D
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 9234
Location: Pune, India
Re: More than a year ago, the city announced that police would crack down  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Sep 2018, 00:46
adkikani wrote:
Thanks VeritasKarishma for your two cents. The approach you pointed out in the similar question helps me more than negation.

Can correct question to ask to find an assumption be:
Given my premises are true, WHAT ELSE DO I NEED for my conclusion to be valid.

On similar lines, can I assume that:
The police chief has a fixed number of men at his disposal and if frees his few men out of ticketing people engaged in speeding cars
to counter drug abuse, then these men will not sit idle.

The efficiency of police staff (new information in the argument as you bought) led to same no of ticketing for speeding.
In your negated version, I still could not get how can you claim:
the excuse about resources being tied up in fighting drug-related crime simply is true
The efficiency is pertaining to ticketing for speeding and claim talks about fighting drug-related crime.



Yes, an assumption is something you NEED for your conclusion to hold.
An Assumption is a missing necessary premise. Look for a gap between premises and conclusion.
Check out these posts:
https://www.veritasprep.com/blog/2013/0 ... sumptions/
https://www.veritasprep.com/blog/2013/0 ... -question/
_________________
Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

Learn more about how Veritas Prep can help you achieve a great GMAT score by checking out their GMAT Prep Options >
GMAT Club Bot
Re: More than a year ago, the city announced that police would crack down   [#permalink] 22 Sep 2018, 00:46
Display posts from previous: Sort by

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

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


Copyright

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