|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 26 Mar 2008
Posts: 341
Location: Washington DC
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
17
[1] , given: 4
|
1> In the years since the city of London imposed strict [#permalink]
 17 Apr 2008, 21:44
1
This post received
KUDOS
Question Stats:
0% (00:00) correct
100% (01:35) wrong based on 0 sessions
1> 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.
Please provide reasons as well while answering question.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CEO
Joined: 17 May 2007
Posts: 2998
Followers: 48
Kudos [?]:
390
[0], given: 210
|
Re: CR-London City. [#permalink]
17 Apr 2008, 21:57
B Assumption questions - that means the answer will be the one option that will not break the conclusion : Similar air-pollution rules should be imposed in other major cities. marshpa wrote: 1> 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 a valid assumption since it attacks the reasoning.
(B) Air-pollution regulations on industry have a significant impact on the quality of the air. I'd say this assumption has nothing to do with the actual argument which focuses on bird species rather than the quality of the air.
(C) The air-pollution problems of other major cities are basically similar to those once suffered by London. Another valid assumption since it talks about other major cities
(D) An increase in the number of bird species in and around a city is desirable. Fair assumption otherwise no point of imposing these rules.
(E) The increased sightings of bird species in and around London reflect an actual increase in the number of species in the area. Yup this supports assumption in option D
Please provide reasons as well while answering question.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 08 Nov 2006
Posts: 1560
Location: Ann Arbor
Schools: Ross '10
Followers: 12
Kudos [?]:
155
[1] , given: 1
|
Re: CR-London City. [#permalink]
18 Apr 2008, 01:11
1
This post received
KUDOS
Nice one! A surprisingly large number of folks fall for the EXCEPT question.
bsd, the question asks for a choice that is not a needed assumption for the conclusion to hold true.
(A) In most major cities, air-pollution problems are caused almost entirely by local industry.
Not a neccessary assumption. If the statement above is false, then the conclusion should fall apart. So what if the problem is not almost entirely cause by the local industry. The regulations if they still apply only to local industry will certainly bring down pollution by atleast some degree and therefore can be adopted elsewhere.
IMHO, A is the correct answer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CEO
Joined: 17 May 2007
Posts: 2998
Followers: 48
Kudos [?]:
390
[0], given: 210
|
Re: CR-London City. [#permalink]
18 Apr 2008, 01:27
Yeah upon second read I see what you are saying nc - +1.
However, it is still a rather contentious that the whole argument doesn't talk about air quality at all - I thought that might be too far fetched an assumption. But I guess E is pretty far fetched too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1553
Followers: 6
Kudos [?]:
104
[0], given: 1
|
Re: CR-London City. [#permalink]
18 Apr 2008, 02:25
I really think it's E. The are my reasoning for each of the answer choices:
a) In most major cities, air-pollution problems are caused almost entirely by local industry
This is assumed. Why? because whenever an author mentions the cause for an effect in an argument, the assumption is that the author must have considered all the other possible causes and believes that those other causes are not possible, otherwise, the author would have included those other causes in the argument.
b) Air-pollution regulations on industry have a significant impact on the quality of the air
This is assumed. Otherwise, the bird species would be dying rather than increase in number.
c) The air-pollution problems of other major cities are basically similar to those once suffered by London
This is assumed. Otherwise, the author when never recommend implementing this same strategy in other major cities to expect a similar result.
d) An increase in the number of bird species in and around a city is desirable
This is assumed, otherwise why would the author use the number of bird species as an indication that the air-pollution problem is getting better? also, the author is encouraging other major cities to do the same thing. so he would like to see the same result happening in other major cities.
e) The increased sightings of bird species in and around London reflect an actual increase in the number of species in the area
NOT ASSUMED. The the argument merely says "the number of bird species seen in and around London has increased dramatically." Perhaps most of the birds are hiding in trees, but now most of the birds are flying around and people have started to see the birds more often.
My answer is E
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Jan 2008
Posts: 295
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
20
[0], given: 3
|
Re: CR-London City. [#permalink]
18 Apr 2008, 03:45
YEah..
I think E is the Rite answer.
THe point that the sight of the birds relates with the actual increase in birds of the local area is not an necessary assumption.
whats the OA ?
regards,
Neo
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 26 Mar 2008
Posts: 341
Location: Washington DC
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
17
[0], given: 4
|
Re: CR-London City. [#permalink]
18 Apr 2008, 08:56
OA is A. Good one Niceprasad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1553
Followers: 6
Kudos [?]:
104
[0], given: 1
|
Re: CR-London City. [#permalink]
18 Apr 2008, 11:30
would you be so kind to post the OE? Cause I don't understand how option A is the answer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 19 Aug 2007
Posts: 207
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
9
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR-London City. [#permalink]
20 Apr 2008, 17:44
marshpa wrote: 1> 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.
Please provide reasons as well while answering question. I dont understand how A is the OA either. The conclusion of imposing similar regulations in other major cities has no substantial backing if the air pollution problem is NOT caused entirely by local industry. if the local industry contributes only a small fraction to the the total air pollution problem, it would make more sense to focus on the industry/factors that have a greater impact on the total air pollution problem, i.e. people must ride their bikes to work from now on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 29 Jan 2007
Posts: 455
Location: Earth
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
36
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR-London City. [#permalink]
20 Apr 2008, 23:31
Wow. I was so sure it would be E.
I thought A is in fact an assumption.
Can you please elaborate ncprasad?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 16 Aug 2004
Posts: 343
Location: India
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
29
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR-London City. [#permalink]
21 Apr 2008, 05:24
Good one. Missed "almost entirely..." Went for B
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 01 May 2007
Posts: 809
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
37
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR-London City. [#permalink]
21 Apr 2008, 05:52
I kind of agree it was E as well. It only says "seen". It never says it seeing them makes the assumption all species increases.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 15 Apr 2008
Posts: 42
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR-London City. [#permalink]
21 Apr 2008, 07:20
I go for E as well. We are to select the answer that is not an assumption in making the argument. Only E is irrelevant. Whether the sighting of increase of birds reflects actual increase or not is not the base to proposal of impost of regulations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 29 Jan 2007
Posts: 455
Location: Earth
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
36
[2] , given: 0
|
Re: CR-London City. [#permalink]
21 Apr 2008, 08:33
2
This post received
KUDOS
http://gmatclub.com/forum/11-t45627
Looks like "almost entirely" in option A is the clue. Makes sense now. I am sure this 900 level CR.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 18 Feb 2008
Posts: 798
Followers: 18
Kudos [?]:
78
[0], given: 25
|
Re: CR-London City. [#permalink]
21 Apr 2008, 10:58
kyatin wrote: http://gmatclub.com/forum/11-t45627
Looks like "almost entirely" in option A is the clue. Makes sense now. I am sure this 900 level CR. Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner! I think that explains to me why A is the right answer. I was choosing between B and E, didn't read A carefully enough to notice the "almost entirely" part. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 26 Mar 2008
Posts: 341
Location: Washington DC
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
17
[0], given: 4
|
Re: CR-London City. [#permalink]
21 Apr 2008, 11:20
Almost entirely part is really killing..Until now I was also not sure why A was correct.
Thanks Kyatin.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 29 Jan 2007
Posts: 455
Location: Earth
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
36
[1] , given: 0
|
Re: CR-London City. [#permalink]
21 Apr 2008, 11:59
1
This post received
KUDOS
Friends, Over last few days ( after observing close call mistakes) , I am noticing frequently...that in CR and RC as well....the trick they play on us is give one answer that is close candidate for selection (or too obvious for rejection -as in this one), and then they introduce some kind of extremity with such words as never,almost,most,least etc... I went back on some missed RCs/CRs and saw this was quite a pattern. I am sure we can watch out for such exaggerations to effectively eliminate these tempting but wrong answers when its tough to call. Just thought I will share this. Happy prepping 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 26 Mar 2008
Posts: 341
Location: Washington DC
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
17
[0], given: 4
|
Re: CR-London City. [#permalink]
22 Apr 2008, 13:45
Kyatin,
Really a nice catch. +1 to you..
We should come up with these patterns so in the exams when answers are little haszy we can crack.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: CR-London City.
[#permalink]
22 Apr 2008, 13:45
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
