Assumption - CR

[saurabh_maths]

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 after some time

[manpsingh87]

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 after some time

IMO E..!!!

[bubbliiiiiiii]

IMO D

[tetura84]

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 after some time

Tough call between D & E

Negate D = Increase in the no of birds in and around city is NOT desirable.
If not desirable, then why to implement this rule in other major cities? - argument falls apart.

Negate E = Increased sightings of birds do NOT reflect an actual increase in no of species.
If it does not reflect, but who cares? In the argument we are never concerned about the actual no. Still, if the sightings are increased in London by applying these rules, we can apply this rule to other cities as well.

[HSPA]

D is totally out of scope of the argument : who is desiring birds in city?? Paragraph never spoke about this...

E is an assumption: Birds are counted correctly is what is assumed.

I am going with D

OA please??? and please rank this SC (500 to 700+) I am putting 650+

[Night reader]

Giys don't listen to NOTION about CR entries are intuitive and that assumption, weaken/strengthen question answer choices cannot be ruled out by the use of principles and special knowledge likewise those obtained from CR Bible or LSAT books! YES they can - look in A we have quantifier, modifier problem + logical fallacy tied to "most" = more than 50% (remember Adam's note? )

I really don't understand people who lead us lost in the darkness by pointing to ignore certain rules for CR

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 after some time

[clock60]

vote for E

[cyrwr1]

IMO A,

A uses strong words : almost entirely!! It does tell you that regulations does help the cause but nowhere does it say an industry should be "almost entirely" responsible. It can be responsible not entirely from the passage.
C,D,E are all easily assumed from the passage.
B is an excellent wrong answer if not for A

I hope I helped.

[saurabh_maths]

Yes the OA is A.

I also chose E and got it wrong.

As A chooses extreme words 'almost entirely' .... hence it is shown as correct ans.

Good catch Night reader and cyrwr1 !!

Cant say what shd be the rank of this q. but looks to me yes it could be of the range > 650.

[tetura84]

remember Adam's note?

Night reader, can you please post the link

[mundasingh123]

Giys don't listen to NOTION about CR entries are intuitive and that assumption, weaken/strengthen question answer choices cannot be ruled out by the use of principles and special knowledge likewise those obtained from CR Bible or LSAT books! YES they can - look in A we have quantifier, modifier problem + logical fallacy tied to "most" = more than 50% (remember Adam's note? )

I really don't understand people who lead us lost in the darkness by pointing to ignore certain rules for CR

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 after some time

IMO A,

A uses strong words : almost entirely!! It does tell you that regulations does help the cause but nowhere does it say an industry should be "almost entirely" responsible. It can be responsible not entirely from the passage.
C,D,E are all easily assumed from the passage.
B is an excellent wrong answer if not for A

I hope I helped.

Both Night Reader and Cyrwrw1 are talking about different quantifiers.
Night Reader seems to be talking about Most and Crrywr1 seems to be talking about "almost entirely"
I agree with Crywr1 on what he said but can NR elaborate on what u are trying to say about the Cities being More than 50 %

[Night reader]

@tetura it's my pleasure
https://www.beatthegmat.com/mystery-stor ... 74827.html

remember Adam's note?

Night reader, can you please post the link

[pradeepkaushal9518]

i was also confused between D and E but option A is the only option in which nothing is told about birds so it may be the correct.

anyway good quetion what is the source?