Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

 It is currently 26 Aug 2016, 22:35

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# In the years since the city of London imposed strict

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 18 Jul 2012
Posts: 4
Location: Viet Nam
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Operations
GMAT 1: 640 Q44 V34
GPA: 2.85
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 3

In the years since the city of London imposed strict [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Oct 2012, 01:12
4
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

27% (02:23) correct 73% (01:17) wrong based on 174 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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.

I choose E but it's wrong. can S.o help me explain why not E.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
Moderator
Joined: 02 Jul 2012
Posts: 1230
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy
GMAT 1: 740 Q49 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Engineering (Energy and Utilities)
Followers: 110

Kudos [?]: 1254 [0], given: 116

Re: In the years since the city of London [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Oct 2012, 05:43
The passage suggests that the number of birds in the city has increased based on the facts that more birds are being seen. But that might not be the case. It may simply be that more of species are flying around than before. But due to the assumption that increased sightings mean increased number of species, the argument holds good.

Although the question would have been more clear had the conclusion been something like,

Similar air-pollution rules should be imposed in other major cities for an increase in the number of bird species.

I would like to know what the source of the question is.
_________________

Did you find this post helpful?... Please let me know through the Kudos button.

Thanks To The Almighty - My GMAT Debrief

GMAT Reading Comprehension: 7 Most Common Passage Types

Manhattan GMAT Instructor
Joined: 30 Apr 2012
Posts: 804
Followers: 329

Kudos [?]: 634 [3] , given: 5

Re: In the years since the city of London imposed strict [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Oct 2012, 21:11
3
KUDOS
Expert's post
lvtrung205 wrote:
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.

I choose E but it's wrong. can S.o help me explain why not E.

Remember that assumptions fill the gap that exists between the premise(s) and the conclusion. In this question, Premise 1 = London imposed strict air-pollution regs on local industry; Premise 2 = Bird species have increased as a result; and Conclusion = Similar air-pollution rules should be imposed in other major cities. Think about the gap between the conclusion and the premises. What do you have to believe in order for the conclusion (that the rules should be imposed on other cities) to be valid.

A-Do you have to believe that air-pollution is ALMOST ENTIRELY caused by local industry to believe that the helpful regs should be spread to other cities? No, This is an example of the GMAT using very extreme language to invalidate a choice. [In this case the extreme language invalidates an assumption and we are looking for the only non-assumption]
B-We have to believe that regulations impact the air quality or we wouldn't conclude that the regulations should be extended to other cities.
C-We would only conclude to take the same actions in these cities if the problems were similar.
D-We only make this conclusion if we want more birds!
E-We would only recommend (or conclude) to apply these regulations if the results are real/verifiable. If we are seeing more birds because we went to parks instead of looking out our 1st floor window, we can't conclude that these regulations should be spread to other cities. Only if the species actually did increase would we conclude that the regulations are worthy of replication.

A is the only non-assumption in the group (but E is a tempting option).

KW
_________________

Kyle Widdison | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | Utah

Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Course Reviews | View Instructor Profile

Intern
Joined: 23 Jan 2012
Posts: 5
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0

Re: In the years since the city of London imposed strict [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Oct 2012, 13:12
KyleWiddison wrote:
lvtrung205 wrote:
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.

I choose E but it's wrong. can S.o help me explain why not E.

Remember that assumptions fill the gap that exists between the premise(s) and the conclusion. In this question, Premise 1 = London imposed strict air-pollution regs on local industry; Premise 2 = Bird species have increased as a result; and Conclusion = Similar air-pollution rules should be imposed in other major cities. Think about the gap between the conclusion and the premises. What do you have to believe in order for the conclusion (that the rules should be imposed on other cities) to be valid.

A-Do you have to believe that air-pollution is ALMOST ENTIRELY caused by local industry to believe that the helpful regs should be spread to other cities? No, This is an example of the GMAT using very extreme language to invalidate a choice. [In this case the extreme language invalidates an assumption and we are looking for the only non-assumption]
B-We have to believe that regulations impact the air quality or we wouldn't conclude that the regulations should be extended to other cities.
C-We would only conclude to take the same actions in these cities if the problems were similar.
D-We only make this conclusion if we want more birds!
E-We would only recommend (or conclude) to apply these regulations if the results are real/verifiable. If we are seeing more birds because we went to parks instead of looking out our 1st floor window, we can't conclude that these regulations should be spread to other cities. Only if the species actually did increase would we conclude that the regulations are worthy of replication.

A is the only non-assumption in the group (but E is a tempting option).

KW

I go with E too.

The reason that I didn't choose A is because the author believe that the air-pollution comes from the local industry. Therefore, the city of London set the regulation for local industry to control this problem. This action result in the increase of the number of bird species.

If such 99% of the pollution comes from other sources and the remaining 1% comes from the local industry, the regulation will not work. That's why I think A is an assumption as it shows that the local industry has an enormous impact on the air-pollution.

I'm not quite sure whether my point is correct. Please give me the advice
Manhattan GMAT Instructor
Joined: 30 Apr 2012
Posts: 804
Followers: 329

Kudos [?]: 634 [1] , given: 5

Re: In the years since the city of London imposed strict [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Oct 2012, 06:14
1
KUDOS
Expert's post
Yes, the decision between A and E can be tricky. Let's use negation to take a different view of these 2 choices. Negation is a bit of a challenge for A because it's difficult to form the "negative" version because it's not a binary, yes/no, situation but rather a degree of impact. To negate, we'll change the degree of impact from "almost entirely" to "only partly".

Here are the "negated" assumptions:
A-) In most major cities, air pollution is only PARTLY caused by local industry.
E-) The increased sightings of bird species in and around London DOES NOT reflect an actual increase in the number of species in the area.

When we negate true assumptions, the negated assumption will effectively destroy the conclusion. Which of the above most effectively destroys the conclusion? In A-, if the regulations on local industry (now only partly responsible for the pollution) still improve the number of species and we can still conclude that these regulations should be applied to other cities, therefore this is NOT a necessary assumption. In E-, if the regulations do not actually impact the number of species, we can no longer conclude that these regulations should be applied to other cities, therefore this IS a necessary assumption. A is the answer.

Does that help?

KW
_________________

Kyle Widdison | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | Utah

Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Course Reviews | View Instructor Profile

Moderator
Joined: 02 Jul 2012
Posts: 1230
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy
GMAT 1: 740 Q49 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Engineering (Energy and Utilities)
Followers: 110

Kudos [?]: 1254 [0], given: 116

Re: In the years since the city of London imposed strict [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Oct 2012, 06:24
KyleWiddison wrote:
Yes, the decision between A and E can be tricky. Let's use negation to take a different view of these 2 choices. Negation is a bit of a challenge for A because it's difficult to form the "negative" version because it's not a binary, yes/no, situation but rather a degree of impact. To negate, we'll change the degree of impact from "almost entirely" to "only partly".

Here are the "negated" assumptions:
A-) In most major cities, air pollution is only PARTLY caused by local industry.
E-) The increased sightings of bird species in and around London DOES NOT reflect an actual increase in the number of species in the area.

When we negate true assumptions, the negated assumption will effectively destroy the conclusion. Which of the above most effectively destroys the conclusion? In A-, if the regulations on local industry (now only partly responsible for the pollution) still improve the number of species and we can still conclude that these regulations should be applied to other cities, therefore this is NOT a necessary assumption. In E-, if the regulations do not actually impact the number of species, we can no longer conclude that these regulations should be applied to other cities, therefore this IS a necessary assumption. A is the answer.

Does that help?

KW

Just curious... Is the argument not required to say something like

Similar air-pollution rules should be imposed in other major cities to increase the number of species.

BTW on a different note, you look like a carbon copy of Brandon Routh..
_________________

Did you find this post helpful?... Please let me know through the Kudos button.

Thanks To The Almighty - My GMAT Debrief

GMAT Reading Comprehension: 7 Most Common Passage Types

BSchool Forum Moderator
Status: Flying over the cloud!
Joined: 17 Aug 2011
Posts: 913
Location: Viet Nam
GMAT Date: 06-06-2014
GPA: 3.07
Followers: 70

Kudos [?]: 531 [0], given: 44

Re: In the years since the city of London imposed strict [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Oct 2012, 10:38
Actually, I reckon errorly the weight of necessary or importance between choice A and B. I thought that, after negate A and B, these two answer will become

(A) In most major cities, air-pollution problems are at least not caused almost entirely by local industry.

(B) Air-pollution regulations on industry at least do not have a significant impact on the quality of the air. => still have impact on quality of air => I thought this negated one does not attack as strong as choice A
_________________

Rules for posting in verbal gmat forum, read it before posting anything in verbal forum
Giving me + 1 kudos if my post is valuable with you

The more you like my post, the more you share to other's need

CR: Focus of the Week: Must be True Question

Manhattan GMAT Instructor
Joined: 30 Apr 2012
Posts: 804
Followers: 329

Kudos [?]: 634 [0], given: 5

Re: In the years since the city of London imposed strict [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Oct 2012, 06:13
If we wanted to have a very structured argument with few holes (assumptions) we would explicitly state that these regulations should be imposed on other cities in order to increase the number of species. This is an EXCEPT question, so the GMAT purposely left this argument vague, or open to these assumptions.

Even if this weren't an except question the GMAT would be okay without restating the species premise. The structure of argument has cause/effect premises with a conclusion that recommends the cause be implemented in other areas implying that the same effect will be achieved. It's like me saying, I studied the GMAT while standing on my head and I got a great score, so you should study the GMAT while standing on your head. I don't have to restate the effect, because it's implied from the basic structure of my argument.

That's the first time I've been told I look like Brandon Routh. Maybe I should be Superman for Halloween.

KW
_________________

Kyle Widdison | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | Utah

Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Course Reviews | View Instructor Profile

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 9238
Followers: 803

Kudos [?]: 165 [0], given: 0

Re: In the years since the city of London imposed strict [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Sep 2014, 15:47
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
Re: In the years since the city of London imposed strict   [#permalink] 28 Sep 2014, 15:47
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
In the years since the city of London imposed strict 8 26 Jun 2007, 12:33
2 In the years since the city of London imposed strict 22 15 May 2007, 05:22
In the years since the city of London imposed strict 8 14 Mar 2007, 22:14
In the years since the city of London imposed strict 1 08 Sep 2006, 17:23
In the years since the city of London imposed strict 13 05 Sep 2006, 22:07
Display posts from previous: Sort by