It is currently 21 Oct 2017, 04:04

### 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

Senior Manager
Joined: 19 Nov 2009
Posts: 311

Kudos [?]: 98 [0], given: 44

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

### Show Tags

20 Mar 2010, 15:46
I think it's A.

Pls. post OA.

Kudos [?]: 98 [0], given: 44

Manhattan Prep Instructor
Affiliations: ManhattanGMAT
Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Posts: 347

Kudos [?]: 1643 [2], given: 11

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

### Show Tags

21 Mar 2010, 13:44
2
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Hey All,

Enough debate and confusion about this one to merit a full on study. So let's do the big old outline and such:

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.

Conclusion: Rules should be imposed in other major cities
Premise: Since rules imposed in London, bird species seen in and around has increased
Assumptions: [Without looking at the answer choices, I'll just guess at a few]. Other things/species haven't suffered. More species = more birds. Other cities aren't fundamentally different from London.

That's all I can think of off the top of my head in 10 seconds, so I'll go looking at the answer choices now.

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.
ANSWER: A few things point this out as the answer. First, there's some dangerous strong language "most major cities" "almost entirely". That's not the point of the argument. Even if this assumption weren't true, the argument would hold. Watch: "In most major cities, air-pollution problems are not caused almost entirely by local industry." Even if the industry is 30% of the pollution, why not get rid of it? The argument still holds.

(B) Air-pollution regulations on industry have a significant impact on the quality of the air.
PROBLEM: If the regulation on industry doesn't have a significant impact on air quality, we shouldn't do it, whatever happens with birds.

(C) The air-pollution problems of other major cities are basically similar to those once suffered by London.
PROBLEM: Hey! I hit this one in my guesses. If other cities are wildly different, it wouldn't make sense to institute the same rules.

(D) An increase in the number of bird species in and around a city is desirable.
PROBLEM: This is a great one. Maybe we don't want more pigeon poop on our statues. If this is untrue, we shouldn't institute the rules.

(E) The increased sightings of bird species in and around London reflect an actual increase in the number of species in the area.
PROBLEM: I hit this one, too! If we're only seeing more, rather than actually HAVING more, we shouldn't necessarily institute the rules.

A lot of you were on top of this, but I thought it would help to get the deep treatment. Hope it helps!

-t
_________________

Tommy Wallach | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | San Francisco

Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Reviews

Kudos [?]: 1643 [2], given: 11

Senior Manager
Joined: 03 Nov 2005
Posts: 380

Kudos [?]: 68 [0], given: 17

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

### Show Tags

22 Mar 2010, 19:13
OA is A.

Great job, guys!
_________________

Hard work is the main determinant of success

Kudos [?]: 68 [0], given: 17

BSchool Forum Moderator
Joined: 02 Oct 2009
Posts: 589

Kudos [?]: 449 [0], given: 412

GMAT 1: 530 Q47 V17
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V36
Re: In the years since the city of London imposed strict [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Mar 2010, 08:34
tooo good explanation given in here
cr1000-t2-q2-75447.html

Kudos [?]: 449 [0], given: 412

Manager
Joined: 07 Jan 2010
Posts: 236

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 16

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

### Show Tags

07 Apr 2010, 08:42
picked A, but not before hovering over E.
Not E, because in order to argue for similar restrictions, you'll have to assume this one.

There are better explanations above ...

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 16

Manager
Joined: 28 Feb 2010
Posts: 167

Kudos [?]: 37 [0], given: 33

WE 1: 3 (Mining Operations)
Re: In the years since the city of London imposed strict [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Apr 2010, 12:33
Good Explanation given by Tommy....

First selected D then realised A is much better...thanks
_________________

Regards,
Invincible...
"The way to succeed is to double your error rate."
"Most people who succeed in the face of seemingly impossible conditions are people who simply don't know how to quit."

Kudos [?]: 37 [0], given: 33

Director
Joined: 25 Aug 2007
Posts: 927

Kudos [?]: 1507 [0], given: 40

WE 1: 3.5 yrs IT
WE 2: 2.5 yrs Retail chain
Re: In the years since the city of London imposed strict [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Apr 2010, 07:10
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

_________________

Tricky Quant problems: http://gmatclub.com/forum/50-tricky-questions-92834.html
Important Grammer Fundamentals: http://gmatclub.com/forum/key-fundamentals-of-grammer-our-crucial-learnings-on-sc-93659.html

Kudos [?]: 1507 [0], given: 40

Director
Status: Apply - Last Chance
Affiliations: IIT, Purdue, PhD, TauBetaPi
Joined: 18 Jul 2010
Posts: 681

Kudos [?]: 168 [5], given: 15

Schools: Wharton, Sloan, Chicago, Haas
WE 1: 8 years in Oil&Gas
Re: In the years since the city of London imposed strict [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Sep 2010, 13:20
5
KUDOS
19
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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.

_________________

Consider kudos, they are good for health

Kudos [?]: 168 [5], given: 15

Senior Manager
Joined: 25 Feb 2010
Posts: 450

Kudos [?]: 110 [5], given: 10

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

### Show Tags

02 Sep 2010, 14:16
5
KUDOS
The argument says, essentially, "London imposed air pollution laws. The number of birds went up. Therefore the rules should be applied everywhere."

It's an unstated assumption that having more birds is a good thing; it's the only justification for improving air quality that is provided. So D is one of the assumptions.

we should apply London's rules elsewhere assumes other cities are similar: C is an assumption.

The increased sightings of birds actually represents an increase in the number of birds is another assumption: E is also assumed.

Between B & A, i'll go with A
because

The argument does not assume that local industry is 'almost entirely' the source of air pollution. It only assumes that regulation on local industry will have a positive effect.
_________________

GGG (Gym / GMAT / Girl) -- Be Serious

Its your duty to post OA afterwards; some one must be waiting for that...

Kudos [?]: 110 [5], given: 10

Director
Status: Apply - Last Chance
Affiliations: IIT, Purdue, PhD, TauBetaPi
Joined: 18 Jul 2010
Posts: 681

Kudos [?]: 168 [0], given: 15

Schools: Wharton, Sloan, Chicago, Haas
WE 1: 8 years in Oil&Gas
Re: In the years since the city of London imposed strict [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Sep 2010, 14:22
This asks for assumptions EXCEPT. I dont understand A.

London imposed laws (not just any laws) but laws on local industry to curb air pollution -> # birds increased. If now I claim I should be doing this at other cities around the world, is there not a basic assumption inherent that if I am assuming the local industries in those cities are causing air pollution.. Why else should I be implementing the laws on local industries in other cities. These are just not any laws, they are implemented on the local industries.

What does E have to do with anything - The increased sightings of bird species in and around London reflect an actual increase in the number of species in the area. Is it not possible that the birds just flew in from other places because the air was cleaner, what does an actual increase have to do with anything?

Why do we have to assume E?
_________________

Consider kudos, they are good for health

Kudos [?]: 168 [0], given: 15

Manager
Joined: 18 Oct 2008
Posts: 187

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 11

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

### Show Tags

02 Sep 2010, 20:31
onedayill wrote:

It's an unstated assumption that having more birds is a good thing; it's the only justification for improving air quality that is provided. So D is one of the assumptions.

I am not sure if you are right about D.

My view,
increase in the number of bird species in and around a city is desirable is no way concerned with the argument.
its just imposing strict laws and the increase in no.of birds.
so option D neither strengthens nor weakens the argument IMO.

A- if local industries is one of the reasons for pollution, imposing law will have a positive effect -> strengthens
E- (negate E) increased sightings of bird species in and around London does not reflect an actual increase in the number of species in the area, then the argument falls apart.

Correct me if am wrong

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 11

Senior Manager
Joined: 14 Jun 2010
Posts: 301

Kudos [?]: 25 [1], given: 7

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

### Show Tags

02 Sep 2010, 21:26
1
KUDOS
I went for B,,,,I was down to A or B

Kudos [?]: 25 [1], given: 7

Intern
Joined: 06 Apr 2010
Posts: 22

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 6

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

### Show Tags

02 Sep 2010, 21:34
D - the usage of the word 'desirable' can be justified as the author uses the 'should' in his recommendation - 'Similar air-pollution rules should be imposed in other major cities'

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 6

Director
Status: Apply - Last Chance
Affiliations: IIT, Purdue, PhD, TauBetaPi
Joined: 18 Jul 2010
Posts: 681

Kudos [?]: 168 [0], given: 15

Schools: Wharton, Sloan, Chicago, Haas
WE 1: 8 years in Oil&Gas
Re: In the years since the city of London imposed strict [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Sep 2010, 21:43
Why is E needed, can someone explain?

Posted from my mobile device
_________________

Consider kudos, they are good for health

Kudos [?]: 168 [0], given: 15

Manager
Joined: 08 Feb 2010
Posts: 129

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

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

### Show Tags

03 Sep 2010, 02:04
B for me...

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

Manager
Joined: 15 Apr 2010
Posts: 163

Kudos [?]: 88 [0], given: 3

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

### Show Tags

05 Sep 2010, 03:18
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.

Assumptions:
1) The increase in the number of bird species is a direct result of application of strict air-pollution regulations. ==> no option
2) The increase in number of bird species actually reflects an increase. ==> option E
3) The increase in number of bird species is desirable and that is why the regualtion should be imposed in other cities as well. ==> option D
4) The regulation imposed in London should also be imposed in other major cities because we are assuming that they have similar air pollution problems. ==> option C

Left with A and B... A can still be clubbed with C but can't really figure out how can we assume B...

Kudos [?]: 88 [0], given: 3

Senior Manager
Joined: 16 Apr 2006
Posts: 270

Kudos [?]: 240 [0], given: 2

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

### Show Tags

05 Sep 2010, 05:55
IMO A.

Though EXCEPT adds twist to the question....
_________________

Trying hard to achieve something unachievable now....

Kudos [?]: 240 [0], given: 2

CEO
Status: Nothing comes easy: neither do I want.
Joined: 12 Oct 2009
Posts: 2761

Kudos [?]: 1886 [0], given: 235

Location: Malaysia
Concentration: Technology, Entrepreneurship
Schools: ISB '15 (M)
GMAT 1: 670 Q49 V31
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V35
Re: In the years since the city of London imposed strict [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Sep 2010, 01:05
mainhoon 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. "Entirely" is quite extreme,,I think this is the correct answer.
(B) Air-pollution regulations on industry have a significant impact on the quality of the air.If this is not true, then how can we see dramatic change after imposing regulations?.
(C) The air-pollution problems of other major cities are basically similar to those once suffered by London.Same plan is to be introduced in other cities, so this is an assumption.
(D) An increase in the number of bird species in and around a city is desirable.if this is not assumed then why are we discussing all this?
(E) The increased sightings of bird species in and around London reflect an actual increase in the number of species in the area.This is an assumption as the author states that the number of bird species seen in and around London has increased. What if the number of species are same?

Entirely is quite extreme. What if the imposing regulation on local industry is the only way to reduce pollution? Other sources could be unavoidable.
_________________

Fight for your dreams :For all those who fear from Verbal- lets give it a fight

Money Saved is the Money Earned

Jo Bole So Nihaal , Sat Shri Akaal

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Gmat test review :
http://gmatclub.com/forum/670-to-710-a-long-journey-without-destination-still-happy-141642.html

Kudos [?]: 1886 [0], given: 235

Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
Posts: 487

Kudos [?]: 162 [1], given: 149

WE 1: 4 years Tech
Re: In the years since the city of London imposed strict [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Dec 2010, 03:30
1
KUDOS
3
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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.
_________________

My Post Invites Discussions not answers
Try to give back something to the Forum.I want your explanations, right now !

Kudos [?]: 162 [1], given: 149

Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
Posts: 487

Kudos [?]: 162 [0], given: 149

WE 1: 4 years Tech
Re: In the years since the city of London imposed strict [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Dec 2010, 03:40
mundasingh123 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.

[Reveal] Spoiler:
OA Check after a few replies or someone can PM me

I am between A and E.
If we negate A, then even if the local industry is reponsible only for a apart of the air pollution problems , the argument still suffices.
If we negate E, then if an increase in the number of sightings does not mean an increase in the number of species, then the argument suffices because this could mean that the birds come more frequently out.The birds feel more comfortable flying in the cleaner air
_________________

My Post Invites Discussions not answers
Try to give back something to the Forum.I want your explanations, right now !

Kudos [?]: 162 [0], given: 149

Re: In the years since the city of London imposed strict   [#permalink] 24 Dec 2010, 03:40

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

Display posts from previous: Sort by