|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 23 Apr 2007
Posts: 130
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
In the years since the city of London imposed strict [#permalink]
 26 Jun 2007, 12:33
Question Stats:
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 11 Jun 2006
Posts: 254
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
3
[0], given: 0
|
This is a hard one. I'll go with A. It seems the most out of scope. I don't like the strong language of "most" and "entirely."
What's the OA?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 29 Jan 2007
Posts: 104
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
3
[0], given: 0
|
i Think its E .
The argument doesnt talk abt the actual increase in the species .
It just talks abt the more sightings of birds near the city.
~sara
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 11 Jun 2006
Posts: 254
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
3
[0], given: 0
|
saransh wrote: i Think its E .
The argument doesnt talk abt the actual increase in the species .
It just talks abt the more sightings of birds near the city.
~sara
The passages does specifically mention species. Though ambiguious, if it were in fact only talking about the number of species discovered, then it wouldn't make sense that that is linked to pollution decrease.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 13 Mar 2007
Posts: 555
Schools: MIT Sloan
Followers: 4
Kudos [?]:
3
[0], given: 0
|
I am thinking B .. whats the OA ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 12 Apr 2007
Posts: 171
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
gotta agree with my friday the 13th buddy baer here.
I'll go with A, its out of scope to say that the passage assumes that air pollution problems are caused ENTIRELY by local industry.
I was actually split between A and B, but I think A is the more foolproof answer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 23 May 2007
Posts: 109
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
I initially thought D  but A looks the best
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 877
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
10
[0], given: 0
|
The answer is A...discussed many times on this forum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 19 Jun 2007
Posts: 4
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
Why not D, as most of the major cities are polluted predominantly by local industry, the "Similar air-pollution rules should be imposed in other major cities" will have an effect on the pollution, what am I missing?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
