CR: AIR POLLUTION : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR)
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases https://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 25 Feb 2017, 01:44

### 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

# CR: AIR POLLUTION

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 27 Nov 2004
Posts: 30
Location: Vienna, Austria
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 17 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

18 Jan 2005, 17:07
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

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

### HideShow timer Statistics

PLEASE EXPLAIN CORRECT ANSWER CHOICE A! It makes little sense to me.

THANKS!
F.

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!
Intern
Joined: 27 Nov 2004
Posts: 30
Location: Vienna, Austria
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 17 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

18 Jan 2005, 17:41
To me, C seems most reasonable.
VP
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 1218
Location: Taiwan
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 626 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

20 Jan 2005, 04:31
I think it's A.

It need not stress "almost entirely."
VP
Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 1488
Location: Germany
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 332 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

20 Jan 2005, 05:36
A ! the author doesnt assume that the local industry is "almost entirely" responsible for the air-pollution. it is on major factor of it. if we deny it the conclusion doesnt fall apart. even if the local industy is not almost completely responsible for it, the conclusion is sound.
Intern
Joined: 12 Dec 2004
Posts: 5
Followers: 0

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

### Show Tags

21 Jan 2005, 20:21
The question asks - Each of the following is an assumption made in the argument above "EXCEPT" - so we need to find a response that cannot be linked to the argument presented:

(B) Air-pollution regulations on industry have a significant impact on the quality of the air - can be derived from the stem; otherwise, similar measures may not have been contemplated for other cities.

(C) The air-pollution problems of other major cities are basically similar to those once suffered by London. - possible; otherwise, improvement in London would not encourage thoughts of similar measures in other cities.

(D) An increase in the number of bird species in and around a city is desirable - possible; it could indicate better air quality.

(E) The increased sightings of bird species in and around London reflect an actual increase in the number of species in the area - possible; if they were transit birds, the numbers would not remain high for more than few days.

(A) In most major cities, air-pollution problems are caused almost entirely by local industry. - nowhere does the question stem talk about any source of pollution.

Hope this helps !!
SVP
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 2243
Followers: 16

Kudos [?]: 330 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

21 Jan 2005, 23:33
I agree, (A). The statement isn't based on the assumption that pollution is almost entirely caused by local industries. It only assumes that restriction on local industry would have a great impact on reducing pollution.
Intern
Joined: 20 Jan 2005
Posts: 37
Location: Bombay
Followers: 0

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

### Show Tags

22 Jan 2005, 13:46
I will go with (D). The increased number of birds is the causal effect of less pollution and not as stated.
SVP
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 2243
Followers: 16

Kudos [?]: 330 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

22 Jan 2005, 23:05
Dr_Friedrich 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.

The assumption bt the last two sentences is that more birds are desirable.
Re: CR: AIR POLLUTION   [#permalink] 22 Jan 2005, 23:05
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
Neighboring landholders: Air pollution from the giant 7 05 Aug 2010, 13:16
Neighboring landholders: Air pollution from the giant 2 07 Dec 2009, 13:06
9 CR: air pollutants 27 26 Jun 2008, 01:56
Although air pollution was previously thought to exist 4 11 Jan 2008, 11:17
CR 1000: Air pollution in Los Diablos 5 31 Oct 2007, 22:45
Display posts from previous: Sort by