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 air [#permalink]
27 Jul 2004, 09:43
0% (00:00) correct
100% (00:51) wrong based on 1 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 ln
and around London has increased dramatically. Similar air-pollution rules
should be imposed in other major cities. which 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
B) Air pollution regulations on industry
have a significant impact on the quality
of the air.
0 The air pollution problelns 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
45 sec. E it is. This is an assumption question and I have no clue what the "EXCEPT" has to do here.
E) if E is negated, then the reported would not correspond to an actual increase in the bird population and the argument is shattered.
B) so what? we are not interested about this but rather by the effect of pollution on the bird population
C) again, even though other cities' air pollution problems are different, the pollution reduction policies could still be adopted to increase the bird population. This does not directly attack the argument _________________
pakoo, you are right on D. I have to change my answer to D. However, I'm not sure what you mean by non-assumption because all the other ones would be out of scope. Only D IS an assumption _________________
OA given is A. I picked D as that one only seemed correct. But when i saw the answer key , I was completely flabbergasted. I thought quite a lot about it but could not bring myself to convince that A can be a answer. Then I thought that may be my little brain is deceiving me once again ..so thought of posting it here.
I strongly suspect that answer given is incorrect.
Well, the conclusion goes on to say that "air-pollution rules should be imposed in other major cities". Why should we impose those rules without knowing that those rules are ultimately desirable? A is not an assumption. Whether the pollution be produced mainly by local industries or not, how could that impact the decision of suggesting other cities to adopt the same policies? _________________
I disagree with A. Just to add to what I said, A uses very vague term "most major cities". We want to destroy the argument here. Why would we talk about most major cities? An assumption should directly link the premise to the conclusion which A fails to do. In D's negation, if birds are a plague, how could we recommend other cities to adopt the air pollution policies? _________________
With no offences meant to anybody.. I am once again noticing that once OA is given, and this happens particularly in CR questions, that answer choice is justified. When I posted the question, until 8 hours nobody even mentioned A. There were B's , C's , D's and E's but not a single A.
Yes ofcourse A could be correct but what scares me is that why the hell CR questions are sometimes so fishy.
And Iam unable to understand explanations given in support of A. MAY BE iam feeling sleepy.
I think Assumption mentioned in A ought to be there in argument because the fact/evidence says that when restrictions were imposed on local industry , things were improved. Now, conclusion says that "similar" restriction should be imposed in other cities. So what A says is assumed in argument.
What D says.. that is true of what author believes in..but here we are talking about argument made in favor of similar restrictions and we have to analyze that argument. I hope iam able to make my point
B seems to be the answer. It is too strong to say that the effect is
"significant". Just because the number of bird species have increased
doesn't necessarily mean that the number of birds have increased.
The new species could be migrartory birds.. who knows..
So, B can't be an assumption.
for every person who doesn't try because he is
afraid of loosing , there is another person who
keeps making mistakes and succeeds..