BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

CR1000 T2 Q2

Expert replies
by joyseychow » Thu Feb 05, 2009 5:57 am
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.

OA: A
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by tanviet » Sat Feb 07, 2009 8:07 pm
A is correct, because it is not needed to be "most" for argument to be valid
Join the discussion

by bmlaud » Sat Feb 07, 2009 10:47 pm
Conclusion: Similar air-pollution rules should be imposed in other major cities.

The conclusion is valid for all the major cities so the assumption for the conclusion too should be valid for all major cities.

Option A states ' most major cities' so option A should be correct.
Join the discussion

by nervesofsteel » Sun Feb 08, 2009 4:20 am
A is not assumed in First sentence...

By imposing laws on Local industry there is a decrease in air pollution.. but it doesn't mean that only Local industry was responsible for Air pollution...

it is just that contribution to decrease air pollution by laws on local industry led to increase in number of bird species...
Join the discussion

by mason77 » Sat May 14, 2016 1:13 am
I will go with option A
Join the discussion