cant understand..air pollution
-
kiranlegend
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 340
- Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2008 8:09 am
- Location: India
- Thanked: 6 times
-
NSNguyen
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 401
- Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 9:21 am
- Thanked: 3 times
- Followed by:1 members
I would go with E when it is out of scope.
Please share your idea and your reasoning 
https://bmnmed.com/home/
https://nguyensinguyen.vietnam21.org
https://bmnmed.com/home/
https://nguyensinguyen.vietnam21.org
-
srinivasarajui
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 51
- Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 1:52 am
- Location: Hyderbad,India
- Thanked: 3 times
- GMAT Score:580
I am agree with Ian Stewart, I think the answer is A. It assumed that some pollution is caused by local industry but not entirely.
Thanks Ian Stewart
Thanks Ian Stewart
Srinu
-
Balrog1978
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 32
- Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 4:33 am
- Thanked: 1 times
Fantastic Question. If this were GMAT - I would have definitely gone with D. Too conditioned by GMAT tutoring to miss something this obvious. I guess a perfect 800 is out 
-
miguelmickelberg
- Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2010 1:34 pm
I would go with (A). This answer choice is definitely not a necessary assumption, as the air-pollution regulations could have caused a 30% decrease in air-pollution and this would cause a lot of changes already.
-
mundasingh123
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 2330
- Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 5:14 am
- Thanked: 56 times
- Followed by:26 members
Hi IanIan Stewart wrote: In the original argument, what is the justification for the conclusion? Precisely that there were more birds. It's an unstated assumption that having more birds is a good thing; it's the only justification for improving air quality that is provided. So D is one of the assumptions. A, however, is clearly not assumed in the argument. The argument does not assume that local industry is 'almost entirely' the source of air pollution. It only assumes that regulation on local industry will have a positive effect.
I have a doubt abt Ans choice D
D says An increase in the number of bird species in and around a city is desirable.
whereas the Stimulus says An increase in the number of bird species seen in and around a city .
The stimuls just talks abt the number of species seen and not species that actually live in the city.The species might be flying over the city from other places in other cities.
-
abidshariff
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 37
- Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 2:50 am
- Thanked: 2 times
Hey Ian , I got a question here. I see no point in how E is assumed. It could be possible that increase in the number of birds in and around the city is due to more birds coming from another city, say manchester, but its not due to increase in the number of species in London.
-
gigsonline
- Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 8:00 pm
If B cannot be an assumption, neither can A which is on similar lines..
If the argument is not concerned with improving quality of air (option B) why would Air pollution problems be relevant(Option A)
I go with 'D'. Because negating this argument does not weaken the argument while rest of the options do.
The argument does not establish a causal relationship between regulation and inc. in bird species. It could merely be correlation. Hence, inc. in bird species need not be desirable.
If the argument is not concerned with improving quality of air (option B) why would Air pollution problems be relevant(Option A)
I go with 'D'. Because negating this argument does not weaken the argument while rest of the options do.
The argument does not establish a causal relationship between regulation and inc. in bird species. It could merely be correlation. Hence, inc. in bird species need not be desirable.
-
prashant misra
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 101
- Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2011 9:39 pm
-
ArunangsuSahu
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 382
- Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 5:47 pm
- Thanked: 15 times
A is assumed, because otherwise it would make no sense for other major cities to impose the same regulations to achieve the same results.shipra wrote:2. 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.
C is assumed, because otherwise what worked for London (imposing air-pollution regulation on local industries) would not work for them.
D is assumed, because otherwise the argument wouldn't even suggest doing something to achieve an increase in the species.
B and E: Air quality isn't mentioned, neither is an actual increase in the number of species. It can be said reasonably that if the regulation-quality link were not being made, the argument would not suggest regulations (similar to A). E remains as the best answer.
If you found one of my answers useful, hit the shiny Thanks button! : )
