|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 04 Dec 2008
Posts: 115
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
9
[0], given: 2
|
In the years since the city of London imposed strict [#permalink]
 05 Feb 2009, 06:46
Question Stats:
40% (01:09) correct
60% (00:39) 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 18 May 2008
Posts: 1305
Followers: 9
Kudos [?]:
57
[0], given: 0
|
It should be B We are not talking of the quality of air.All other choices are related to the argument joyseychow 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 17 Dec 2008
Posts: 180
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
21
[0], given: 0
|
A. In A, . "entirely" by local industry is not assumed, could have been most of the impact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 01 Aug 2008
Posts: 775
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
32
[0], given: 99
|
IMO E.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 20 Mar 2007
Posts: 62
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 0
|
Am going with E.What is the OA?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 25 Oct 2006
Posts: 656
Followers: 7
Kudos [?]:
104
[0], given: 6
|
joyseychow 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.
- TRUE
(B) Air-pollution regulations on industry have a significant impact on the quality of the air.
- Tempting to me though could be true
(C) The air-pollution problems of other major cities are basically similar to those once suffered by London.
-TRUE
(D) An increase in the number of bird species in and around a city is desirable.
- TRUE
(E) The increased sightings of bird species in and around London reflect an actual increase in the number of species in the -area.
- "Sighting" is not mentioned anywhere in stem. Probably the best winner.
IMO E.
_________________
If You're Not Living On The Edge, You're Taking Up Too Much Space
|
|
|
|
|
|
Retired Moderator
Joined: 18 Jul 2008
Posts: 1003
Followers: 7
Kudos [?]:
40
[0], given: 5
|
A)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 842
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
19
[0], given: 0
|
A argument does not assume that local industry does most of the polluting
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 04 Dec 2008
Posts: 115
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
9
[0], given: 2
|
My answer was between A and E as well. A "entirely' is too extreme where else for E "sighting" not mentioned.
OA: A
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 18 May 2008
Posts: 1305
Followers: 9
Kudos [?]:
57
[0], given: 0
|
Can we hv the OA pls?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 10 Jan 2009
Posts: 106
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
13
[3] , given: 2
|
3
This post received
KUDOS
What a CR ? Really a tough question. Specially assumption sometimes are most difficult. When I am in a situation like this ( cannot decide with 100% confirmation ) I opt for negation policy. Negate the option, if it breaks the argument , it must be an assumption. joyseychow 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.
P1:London imposed strict air-pollution regulations on local industry
P2:Since then,number of bird species seen in and around London has increased dramatically
Conclusion:Similar air-pollution rules should be imposed in other major cities.
(-B) Air-pollution regulations on industry does not have a significant impact on the quality of the air.
We cannot get to the conclusion without this
(-C) The air-pollution problems of other major cities are basically not similar to those once suffered by London.
If author has not assumed this, he cannot mention "other cities" in the conclusion.
(-D) An increase in the number of bird species in and around a city is not desirable.
This is tough. But if the we assume that increase of birds are not desired then making the air clean will also not be desirable. It has to be an assumption.
I am stuck between A and E.
(-A) In most major cities, air-pollution problems are caused almost not entirely by local industry.
Does this break the argument ? No I think. So what if the pollution
is almost not entirely by local industry, still the regulations could help other cities....
If E can fail the test, A should be the winner.
(-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.
If the increased sightings not equal to increase in the number of species, then how can we conclude to imply the regulations in other cities. The conclusion says "....rules [color=#BF0000]should be imposed ..... [/color]. Author seems to be very confident. So he must be assuming that the count is reflecting an increase !!!!!!
In for A
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 01 Aug 2008
Posts: 775
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
32
[0], given: 99
|
OK I agree. 'almost' made A for the candidate. but still why E is wrong? any one can put some light on it?
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Retired Moderator
Joined: 18 Jul 2008
Posts: 1003
Followers: 7
Kudos [?]:
40
[1] , given: 5
|
1
This post received
KUDOS
E is wrong because we assume that the increase of bird species is related to ACTUAL increases in bird, rather than MORE people calling in with "sightings". Suppose you have 100 birds - but instead of having 10 people calling in, now you have 50 people calling in. Does that mean that there are more birds? nope. We still have 100. It just means that there are more people reporting them. joyseychow 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
GMAT Instructor
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 973
Location: Toronto
Followers: 168
Kudos [?]:
443
[1] , given: 3
|
1
This post received
KUDOS
The answer must be A here - we know that pollution regulations on local industry in London have helped increase the number of birds. Presumably local industry then produces a significant amount of pollution, so the regulations may have helped to reduce pollution overall. Still, local industry does not need to be 'entirely' responsible for the pollution in order for regulations to help matters. Perhaps local industry only created 25% of the total pollution, but the regulations cut local industry pollution to zero; that would still have a significant impact on air quality. If you bring outside opinions to the argument, E might be tempting - if you think reducing air pollution is good in and of itself, then E might not seem relevant. Still, if we analyze the argument -- Regulations in London led to more birds. Therefore these regulations are good and should be adopted by other cities. -- we see that the *only* reason the author gives for introducing regulations is to increase the number of birds - surely the author is assuming that's a good thing if he or she is proposing other cities introduce the same regulations.
_________________
Nov 2011: After years of development, I am now making my advanced Quant books and high-level problem sets available for sale. Contact me at ianstewartgmat at gmail.com for details.
Private GMAT Tutor based in Toronto
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 01 Aug 2008
Posts: 775
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
32
[0], given: 99
|
Thanks bigfernhead and IanStewart for your explanations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 25 Aug 2007
Posts: 959
WE 1: 3.5 yrs IT
WE 2: 2.5 yrs Retail chain
Followers: 38
Kudos [?]:
557
[0], given: 40
|
Very nice. +1. gmatavenue wrote: What a CR ? Really a tough question. Specially assumption sometimes are most difficult. When I am in a situation like this ( cannot decide with 100% confirmation ) I opt for negation policy. Negate the option, if it breaks the argument , it must be an assumption. joyseychow 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.
P1:London imposed strict air-pollution regulations on local industry
P2:Since then,number of bird species seen in and around London has increased dramatically
Conclusion:Similar air-pollution rules should be imposed in other major cities.
(-B) Air-pollution regulations on industry does not have a significant impact on the quality of the air.
We cannot get to the conclusion without this
(-C) The air-pollution problems of other major cities are basically not similar to those once suffered by London.
If author has not assumed this, he cannot mention "other cities" in the conclusion.
(-D) An increase in the number of bird species in and around a city is not desirable.
This is tough. But if the we assume that increase of birds are not desired then making the air clean will also not be desirable. It has to be an assumption.
I am stuck between A and E.
(-A) In most major cities, air-pollution problems are caused almost not entirely by local industry.
Does this break the argument ? No I think. So what if the pollution
is almost not entirely by local industry, still the regulations could help other cities....
If E can fail the test, A should be the winner.
(-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.
If the increased sightings not equal to increase in the number of species, then how can we conclude to imply the regulations in other cities. The conclusion says "....rules [color=#BF0000]should be imposed ..... [/color]. Author seems to be very confident. So he must be assuming that the count is reflecting an increase !!!!!!
In for A _________________
Want to improve your CR: cr-methods-an-approach-to-find-the-best-answers-93146.html
Tricky Quant problems: 50-tricky-questions-92834.html
Important Grammer Fundamentals: key-fundamentals-of-grammer-our-crucial-learnings-on-sc-93659.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
