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

Question

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.

carcass · Accepted Answer

Last January, in an attempt to lower the number of traffic fatalities, the state legislature passed its “Click It or Ticket” law.
 
 Ok this is a fact

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.

it seems that the new law going to be most sever than before. also notice the meaning of this sentence, basically it says that the drivers could be ticketed even if they do not have previous infractions

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

people already protest for the new law

Law enforcement groups counter these claims by stating that the new regulations will save countless additional lives.

The new law will save additional lives. This could say that the old law save lives but lower than the new law, but it still saves 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 seems suddenly good because with the new law the drivers could be stopped for not wearing a seat belt even if they do not commit any infraction. Instead with the previous law they could be ticketed for bealt only in combination with  another infraction

(B)The “Click It or Ticket” law violates current search and seizure laws.

I do not see anything in the stimulus that talks about seizure of something (I do not care about THAT something even if I know or not

(C)Laws similar to “Click It or Ticket” have effectively reduced traffic fatalities in a number of states.
 
 I do not see anything about traffic fatalities maybe I can infer that if I do not wear the seat blet something could happen to me or my family but this is to far from "home" i.e. the stimulus

(D)The previous seatbelt laws were ineffective in saving lives.
 
 This one is tricky. Because the previous law was ineffective in saving lives AT ALL. But we know from the last sentence that this is not true completely
 
 (E)Law enforcement groups, rather than citizens groups, should determine how to best ensure the safety of motorists.
 
 safety motorist is to far from the scope of the question.

A must be the answer and you infer it from the second phrase of the stimulus

regards

pqhai · Answer

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,

Bunuel · Answer

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.

siyer · Answer

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?

Skywalker18 · Answer

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

MagooshExpert · Answer

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

Lucky1994 · Answer

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?

CrackverbalGMAT · Answer

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.

ElijahTimroyalty · Answer

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

AbhishekDhanraJ72 · Answer

"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.

VerbalBot · Answer

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.

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

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

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

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards