1000 CR question TESTB - Q2

This topic has expert replies
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 10:55 pm

1000 CR question TESTB - Q2

by siddharth.prasad » Wed Sep 19, 2007 12:59 am
Hi All

This is my first post on this forum....so apologies in advance for any errors (if any).

My answer to this question was E...and th correct answer was A.
Please explain.

In the years since the city of London imposed strict air-pollution regulations on local industry, the number of bird species seen in and around London has increased dramatically. Similar air-pollution rules should be imposed in other major cities.

Each of the following is an assumption made in the argument above EXCEPT:

(A) In most major cities, air-pollution problems are caused almost entirely by local industry.

(B) Air-pollution regulations on industry have a significant impact on the quality of the air.

(C) The air-pollution problems of other major cities are basically similar to those once suffered by London.

(D) An increase in the number of bird species in and around a city is desirable.

(E) The increased sightings of bird species in and around London reflect an actual increase in the number of species in the area.

Would greatly appreciate help on this.
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 65
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 8:29 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

by optimisticsam » Wed Sep 19, 2007 8:53 am
I find this to be a pretty difficult question.

The reason being, it seems quite a few answers would make sense.

The conclusion is that air-pollution can be stopped by regulation and because of the regulation, the number of bird species will increase.

In my opinion A,B, and D all fit as an assumption here.

In A - For the regulations to work (and thus be the reason for the increased birds) the author must assume that all the pollution is coming from areas effected by the regulation. If the pollution is coming from elsewhere, then the regulation would have no effect, and thus, would not be the reason.

In B - The author assumes that these regulations are having a significant impact on the quality of the air in the area and this is the reason bird species have increased.

and in D - For the author to say all cities must impose regulations assumes that cities of course would like more birds around. Some cities may not like this (more bird poop?).

In a test situation, I probably would have gone with B. But I sure would have been stumped...

Any other ideas on this? Maybe a better way to solve this one?

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 321
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2007 5:42 am
Thanked: 1 times

by kajcha » Wed Sep 19, 2007 9:46 am
The questions is asking about EXCEPTION..

IMO, all options can work as assumptions. However, A is too extreme by mentioning "almost entirely". That's the only basis for me to choose A

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 100
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2014 3:58 am

by vanessa.m » Mon May 09, 2016 3:30 am
I am pretty sureit is A