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]
26 Jun 2007, 11:33
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.
The argument doesnt talk abt the actual increase in the species . It just talks abt the more sightings of birds near the city.
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.
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?