It is currently 17 Oct 2017, 04:42

### 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

# In the years since the city of London imposed strict

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10130

Kudos [?]: 261 [0], given: 0

Re: In the years since the city of London imposed strict [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Jun 2015, 03:30
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Kudos [?]: 261 [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 30 Jun 2014
Posts: 38

Kudos [?]: 19 [0], given: 76

Re: In the years since the city of London imposed strict [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Jun 2015, 09:59
Hi,

Thanks to VerbalBot for bumping up this question; it seems like a good one for Sub-600 level.

My doubt here is that since this is an 'Assumption EXCEPT' question, we need to find the option which isn't taken into account or basically, which contributes nothing to the argument (i.e., neutral). Given this, A-D could all qualify as assumptions, however, E does nothing much to the argument. Based on this reasoning, I selected E.

Am I off-topic here? Could someone please guide me in the right direction?

Thank you.

Kudos [?]: 19 [0], given: 76

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10130

Kudos [?]: 261 [0], given: 0

Re: In the years since the city of London imposed strict [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Mar 2016, 09:15
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Kudos [?]: 261 [0], given: 0

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10130

Kudos [?]: 261 [0], given: 0

Re: In the years since the city of London imposed strict [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Mar 2016, 12:02
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Kudos [?]: 261 [0], given: 0

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10130

Kudos [?]: 261 [0], given: 0

Re: In the years since the city of London imposed strict [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Aug 2016, 18:47
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Kudos [?]: 261 [0], given: 0

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10130

Kudos [?]: 261 [0], given: 0

Re: In the years since the city of London imposed strict [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Sep 2016, 06:38
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Kudos [?]: 261 [0], given: 0

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10130

Kudos [?]: 261 [0], given: 0

Re: In the years since the city of London imposed strict [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Sep 2016, 05:47
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Kudos [?]: 261 [0], given: 0

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10130

Kudos [?]: 261 [0], given: 0

Re: In the years since the city of London imposed strict [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Apr 2017, 07:34
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Kudos [?]: 261 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 12 Dec 2016
Posts: 892

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 859

Location: United States
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V33
GPA: 3.64
Re: In the years since the city of London imposed strict [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Jun 2017, 15:41
E is wrong. Ones should realize the scope has shifted from "birds seen" to "species of birds" => E is an assumption
B is an assumption which directly links with the air pollution => hence E is out
A is correct because A is too extreme. If ones negate A, then the argument is intact. => A is not assumption

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 859

Director
Joined: 13 Feb 2015
Posts: 824

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 32

Re: In the years since the city of London imposed strict [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Jun 2017, 04:08
Merged topics. Please, search before posting questions!
_________________

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 32

Manager
Joined: 04 Feb 2017
Posts: 57

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 45

Re: In the years since the city of London imposed strict [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Aug 2017, 04:43
I selected option B.

"Air-pollution regulations on industry have a significant impact on the quality of the air"

In complete argument, how signficant impact of regualation is not mentioned. So how can we consider as assumption?

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 45

Intern
Joined: 26 Sep 2016
Posts: 20

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 14

Re: In the years since the city of London imposed strict [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Aug 2017, 08:34
Why not D?
The author mentions the increase in the number of bird species as a sign of improved air quality. The public may or may not desire the increase in the number of birds. The main target is improving the air quality with or without an increase in the number of birds. Why would the author assume that it is a desired outcome or not?

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 14

Manager
Joined: 01 Feb 2015
Posts: 54

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 36

Re: In the years since the city of London imposed strict [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Aug 2017, 19:54
KyleWiddison wrote:
lvtrung205 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.

I choose E but it's wrong. can S.o help me explain why not E.

Remember that assumptions fill the gap that exists between the premise(s) and the conclusion. In this question, Premise 1 = London imposed strict air-pollution regs on local industry; Premise 2 = Bird species have increased as a result; and Conclusion = Similar air-pollution rules should be imposed in other major cities. Think about the gap between the conclusion and the premises. What do you have to believe in order for the conclusion (that the rules should be imposed on other cities) to be valid.

A-Do you have to believe that air-pollution is ALMOST ENTIRELY caused by local industry to believe that the helpful regs should be spread to other cities? No, This is an example of the GMAT using very extreme language to invalidate a choice. [In this case the extreme language invalidates an assumption and we are looking for the only non-assumption]
B-We have to believe that regulations impact the air quality or we wouldn't conclude that the regulations should be extended to other cities.
C-We would only conclude to take the same actions in these cities if the problems were similar.
D-We only make this conclusion if we want more birds!
E-We would only recommend (or conclude) to apply these regulations if the results are real/verifiable. If we are seeing more birds because we went to parks instead of looking out our 1st floor window, we can't conclude that these regulations should be spread to other cities. Only if the species actually did increase would we conclude that the regulations are worthy of replication.

A is the only non-assumption in the group (but E is a tempting option).

KW

Question regarding option E:
The question says 'the number of bird species SEEN in and around '. It never talks about the actual number of species being increased. What does actual increase in the number of species in that area mean?
Also isn't it obvious that if you see more birds flying in and around london, they have increased in number? [because you SEE them].
I did not understand your first floor /park example.

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 36

Manager
Joined: 01 Feb 2015
Posts: 54

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 36

Re: In the years since the city of London imposed strict [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Aug 2017, 19:58
pratik1709 wrote:
I selected option B.

"Air-pollution regulations on industry have a significant impact on the quality of the air"

In complete argument, how signficant impact of regualation is not mentioned. So how can we consider as assumption?

How do you think the birds have increased in number? It is because the regulation was in place which improved the quality of the air. That's how!

You are right that impact of regulation is not given but two pieces are given. One - regulation was in place to control pollution , two - birds have increased. How can you fill the missing gap? Only if you assume option B.

Makes sense?

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 36

Manager
Joined: 01 Feb 2015
Posts: 54

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 36

Re: In the years since the city of London imposed strict [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Aug 2017, 20:03
deucebigalow wrote:
Why not D?
The author mentions the increase in the number of bird species as a sign of improved air quality. The public may or may not desire the increase in the number of birds. The main target is improving the air quality with or without an increase in the number of birds. Why would the author assume that it is a desired outcome or not?

Take your understanding of the conclusion a little further by reading the prompt one more time. Then come back here!

The main target is improving the air quality so that there is an increase in the number of birds. (the air quality must be increased. Why? because birds count will increase).
The argument states that this regulation must be applied elsewhere. Why? So that the air quality improvement can lead to an increase in number of birds there as well.

Hence, Bird count increase is desirable.

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 36

Senior Manager
Joined: 28 Mar 2017
Posts: 478

Kudos [?]: 121 [0], given: 126

Re: In the years since the city of London imposed strict [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Aug 2017, 05:46
smahamkl 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.（A）
(E) The increased sightings of bird species in and around London reflect an actual increase in the number of species in the area.

Can any one point out the right answer for the above question?

sm

I selected "E" but after going through the thread, I think "A" makes more sense. But don't worry, you won't get such half baked questions on GMAT.
Regards
_________________

Kudos if my post helps!

1. e-GMAT's ALL SC Compilation

Kudos [?]: 121 [0], given: 126

Manager
Joined: 20 Jun 2016
Posts: 52

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 167

Re: In the years since the city of London imposed strict [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Aug 2017, 21:38
Hi Expert,
I was stuck between A, D, and E.
I chose D because on it does not have any effect on the conclusion.

Can you please explain how A is correct because i feel A is an assumption.
_________________

Life is a challenge face it.

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 167

Manager
Joined: 20 Jun 2016
Posts: 52

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 167

Re: In the years since the city of London imposed strict [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Aug 2017, 21:40
Hi mikemcgarry
I was stuck between A, D, and E.
I chose D because on it does not have any effect on the conclusion.

Can you please explain how A is correct because i feel A is an assumption.
_________________

Life is a challenge face it.

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 167

Intern
Joined: 15 Mar 2017
Posts: 37

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 18

Location: India
Re: In the years since the city of London imposed strict [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Aug 2017, 22:01
IMO answer is A. The choice is very extreme here. The author doesn't assume that pollution is caused almost entirely by local industries. Even if a portion of it is caused by local ones, laws will help them reduce and increase the population of birds.
_________________

You give kudos, you get kudos. :D

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 18

Intern
Joined: 29 Jul 2017
Posts: 12

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 10

GMAT 1: 650 Q50 V27
Re: In the years since the city of London imposed strict [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Aug 2017, 06:24
I chose B. The reason behind it is:
Strict air pollution regulations on local industry-> No. of bird species increase ->Therefore, similar rules should be imposed on other major cities.
There is no relation to quality of air or its effects.
Can somebody help?

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 10

Re: In the years since the city of London imposed strict   [#permalink] 15 Aug 2017, 06:24

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3   4   5   6   [ 120 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by