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.
London imposed strict air-pollution regulations
This topic has expert replies
- gmatclubmember
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 158
- Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 10:31 am
- Thanked: 29 times
- Followed by:2 members
in A I am not comfortable with the word ENTIRELY.
I would go for C.
I would go for C.
a lil' Thank note goes a long way !!
- BellTheGMAT
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 78
- Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2010 8:03 am
- Thanked: 4 times
- Followed by:1 members
wats OA??
I am confused between B and E... The passage neither talks about increase of species in area nor about air quality....
I would go with B.
I am confused between B and E... The passage neither talks about increase of species in area nor about air quality....
I would go with B.
- mehrasa
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 279
- Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 5:43 pm
- Thanked: 15 times
- Followed by:1 members
IMO: A
use the negation strategy
In most major cities, air-pollution problems are not caused almost entirely by local industry.
is this weaken the argument? NO.. then this can not be assumption
B
use the negation strategy
In most major cities, air-pollution problems are not caused almost entirely by local industry.
is this weaken the argument? NO.. then this can not be assumption
B
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 150
- Joined: Thu May 05, 2011 10:04 am
- Thanked: 5 times
- Followed by:4 members
IMO: B
The option B is an inference from the statements in question.
I had like to wait for an expert's take on this
The option B is an inference from the statements in question.
I had like to wait for an expert's take on this
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 608
- Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2011 11:16 am
- Thanked: 37 times
- Followed by:8 members
Went from eliminating easy to tough --
Option D is clearly an assumption, otherwise why would author advocate such steps?
Option E is also an assumption made here. The author is clearly using the number of birds in and around London as actual increase in the number of species
Option C -- is also an assumption. Negate this information and the argument falls apart. Clearly, the author is assuming that the problem is same everywhere
Out of A and B - The word "entirely" is bit extreme and I don't have any other reason to eliminate option B and select this option as the answer. There can be other problems as well but the air pollution could be the largest contributor to this problem. Therefore, we cannot use the word entirely here.
Correct answer OPTION A
Option D is clearly an assumption, otherwise why would author advocate such steps?
Option E is also an assumption made here. The author is clearly using the number of birds in and around London as actual increase in the number of species
Option C -- is also an assumption. Negate this information and the argument falls apart. Clearly, the author is assuming that the problem is same everywhere
Out of A and B - The word "entirely" is bit extreme and I don't have any other reason to eliminate option B and select this option as the answer. There can be other problems as well but the air pollution could be the largest contributor to this problem. Therefore, we cannot use the word entirely here.
Correct answer OPTION A
-
- Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
- Posts: 13
- Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 7:06 pm
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.
This is an assumption beacuse the city of London imposed strict air-pollution regulations on local industry only.
(B) Air-pollution regulations on industry have a significant impact on the quality of the air.
This is an assumption beacuse the city of London imposed strict air-pollution regulations on local industry resulting in increase number of bird species.
(C) The air-pollution problems of other major cities are basically similar to those once suffered by London.
This must be a valid assumption beacuse if this is not the case then there is no need to impose the same law in other city.
(D) An increase in the number of bird species in and around a city is desirable.
This is not the assumption beacuse the law was not imposed to increase the number of bird species. It was to increase the quality of air. This was an indirect result happened from the increase in the quality of air.
(E) The increased sightings of bird species in and around London reflect an actual increase in the number of species in the area.
This is an assumption made in the stated paragraph.
Therfore the anwere to this question IMO is D.
(A) In most major cities, air-pollution problems are caused almost entirely by local industry.
This is an assumption beacuse the city of London imposed strict air-pollution regulations on local industry only.
(B) Air-pollution regulations on industry have a significant impact on the quality of the air.
This is an assumption beacuse the city of London imposed strict air-pollution regulations on local industry resulting in increase number of bird species.
(C) The air-pollution problems of other major cities are basically similar to those once suffered by London.
This must be a valid assumption beacuse if this is not the case then there is no need to impose the same law in other city.
(D) An increase in the number of bird species in and around a city is desirable.
This is not the assumption beacuse the law was not imposed to increase the number of bird species. It was to increase the quality of air. This was an indirect result happened from the increase in the quality of air.
(E) The increased sightings of bird species in and around London reflect an actual increase in the number of species in the area.
This is an assumption made in the stated paragraph.
Therfore the anwere to this question IMO is D.