Sorry for posting this CR again, I know it has been : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR)
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 23 Jan 2017, 12:12

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Sorry for posting this CR again, I know it has been

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 21 Mar 2005
Posts: 115
Location: Basel
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 0

Sorry for posting this CR again, I know it has been [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Jan 2007, 04:42
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 1 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Sorry for posting this CR again, I know it has been discussed a lot but I can t agree with the OA. In my view , A has to be assumed else the argument falls apart. Here is my explanation:

regulations on local industry increase number of birds

similar regulations in other major cities -> that means, regulations on local industry are expected to have the same effect as in London -> increase number of birds

What if the pollution is not caused by the local industry? The plan of implementing the regulations would be flawed .

Can someone help me on this one?

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.
If you have any questions
New!
Director
Affiliations: FRM Charter holder
Joined: 02 Dec 2006
Posts: 734
Schools: Stanford, Chicago Booth, Babson College
Followers: 16

Kudos [?]: 79 [0], given: 4

Re: CR - air pollution [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Jan 2007, 05:10
tobiastt wrote:
Sorry for posting this CR again, I know it has been discussed a lot but I can t agree with the OA. In my view , A has to be assumed else the argument falls apart. Here is my explanation:

regulations on local industry increase number of birds

similar regulations in other major cities -> that means, regulations on local industry are expected to have the same effect as in London -> increase number of birds

What if the pollution is not caused by the local industry? The plan of implementing the regulations would be flawed .

Can someone help me on this one?

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.

"almost entirely" in A is too extreme...may be it is only possible to control pollution created by local industry. There can be other sources of pollution too, which are impossible to control.
Manager
Joined: 21 Mar 2005
Posts: 115
Location: Basel
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

09 Jan 2007, 05:13
I agree that A is a bit too extreme but that the only thing that speaks for A ... in B , air quality is not mentioned in the passage...why is B wrong then?
Director
Affiliations: FRM Charter holder
Joined: 02 Dec 2006
Posts: 734
Schools: Stanford, Chicago Booth, Babson College
Followers: 16

Kudos [?]: 79 [0], given: 4

### Show Tags

09 Jan 2007, 05:18
tobiastt wrote:
I agree that A is a bit too extreme but that the only thing that speaks for A ... in B , air quality is not mentioned in the passage...why is B wrong then?

I think..we can safely assume that pollution affects the quality of air..and reducing the pollution increases the quality of air.

B says "Air-pollution regulations on industry have a significant impact on the quality of the air" That is the reason, author of the argument is recommending pollution control measures in other cities.
Senior Manager
Joined: 01 Feb 2005
Posts: 274
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 92 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

09 Jan 2007, 07:14
This is what I thought.
It is an assumption question by analogy. Just because London saw an increase in the bird sightings with tighter controls on air regulations, the conclusion is that the other cities would also see a similar increase with tighter controls being applied. But the tighter controls is on the local industry and the assumption is air-pollution problems are caused almost entirely by local industry.

The use of extreme language is reduced by using the word almost entirely as opposed to entirely.

I like A. Would be interested in knowing what is the OA?

axl_oz
Senior Manager
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Posts: 321
Location: Orange County, CA
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 113 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

11 Jan 2007, 00:21
I would guess E.

It appears that the argument assumes that an increase in bird sightings is the same as an increase in the number of birds overall. All resulting from the decrease in air pollution.

OA?
Manager
Joined: 21 Mar 2005
Posts: 115
Location: Basel
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

11 Jan 2007, 03:39
OA is A - I can t agree with it
Manager
Joined: 01 Feb 2007
Posts: 64
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

13 Feb 2007, 20:07
I picked E.

I followed the same logic above when working on this question.
There is no way A is the correct answer.
If the negation test is applied, it can weaken the argument.

I do not agree "almost entirely" is too strong.
In GMAT sense, "almost" does not fall into the "all" category, but in the "some" category.
Intern
Joined: 29 Dec 2006
Posts: 45
Location: Seoul
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

13 Feb 2007, 21:19
I would go for A either. The question asks EXCEPT, thus, we need to find an assumption that couldn't be made in the question. A represents the only assumption that is not necessary to reach a conclusion.
a) In most major cities, air-pollution problems are caused almost entirely by local industry.
In order to increase the number of birds, reduction in local industry polution is needed. It means that local industry polution might be one of the major causes of polluted air in the city, but not necessarily the main one. The main cause of pollution and birds population increase has nothing to do with each other.
_________________

brainstorm

A   [#permalink] 13 Feb 2007, 21:19
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
3 Magazine editor: I know that some of our regular advertisers have been 19 18 Jul 2010, 10:20
CR - like previous one I posted 12 29 Jan 2010, 00:06
Time and time again it has been shown that students who 5 18 Aug 2009, 08:32
From the LSAT ... guess this has been posted multiple times. 3 01 Apr 2009, 13:00
I know this has been posted a number of times, but I really 3 03 Sep 2007, 18:23
Display posts from previous: Sort by