Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
In the years since the city of London imposed strict [#permalink]
14 Jul 2005, 09:36
0% (00:00) correct
0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
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.
E states that "The increased sightings of bird species in and around London reflect an actual increase in the number of species in the area."
In simple terms lets assume that there were 5 species of birds before the pollution regulations came into effect. If E is true it states, that the number of species have increase.. for example from 5 to 10.
The argument only states, that the number of sightings have increased. It does not state anything about the number of species, and thus, E cannot be assumed.
Though B is not stated anywhere, it is implied that air pollution regulations could have significantly impacted the quality of air - WHICH COULD have caused the increase in bird sightings.