It is currently 18 Oct 2017, 02:55

### 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

Manager
Joined: 19 Feb 2009
Posts: 54

Kudos [?]: 131 [0], given: 8

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

### Show Tags

28 Feb 2011, 14:14
IMO A

Negate A :

Air Pollution is not are NOT ENTIRELY caused by Local industry
--> Air Pollution is PARTIALLY caused by Local industry

So, # of bird species seen could be increased by reducing Air Pollution PARTIALLY by Regulations on Local Industries.

this means by neagting this option, still we could reach the Conclusion,

So we dont need to Assume this.

Hope this helps
_________________

Working without expecting fruit helps in mastering the art of doing fault-free action !

Kudos [?]: 131 [0], given: 8

Intern
Status: Application submitted
Joined: 12 Jun 2010
Posts: 38

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 1

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

### Show Tags

28 Feb 2011, 18:46
A.
Nowhere is argument it is mentioned that after regulating on local industry, London became almost completely air pollution free or almost pollution free air is required for increase in the number of bird species. So assumption in option A is not required.

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 1

Director
Status: Impossible is not a fact. It's an opinion. It's a dare. Impossible is nothing.
Affiliations: University of Chicago Booth School of Business
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 871

Kudos [?]: 396 [0], given: 123

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

### Show Tags

28 Feb 2011, 21:12
100% A. almost entirely is wrong. A is extreme.

Kudos [?]: 396 [0], given: 123

Senior Manager
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Posts: 412

Kudos [?]: 340 [0], given: 34

Location: United States
Concentration: Marketing, Technology
Re: In the years since the city of London imposed strict [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 May 2011, 04:07
amod243 wrote:
IMO A
Negate A :
Air Pollution is not are NOT ENTIRELY caused by Local industry
--> Air Pollution is PARTIALLY caused by Local industry
So, # of bird species seen could be increased by reducing Air Pollution PARTIALLY by Regulations on Local Industries.
this means by neagting this option, still we could reach the Conclusion,
So we dont need to Assume this.
Hope this helps

The stimulus in the first statement clearly says that "since the city of London imposed strict air-pollution regulations on local industry". Doesnt this means that Air Pollution came into control due to rules and regulations on "local industry" specifically?
And this is exactly what A says about.

If you say that "--> Air Pollution is PARTIALLY caused by Local industry", then wouldnt it will negate the first statment of the stimulus and destroy the conclusion?
_________________

If you know what you're worth, then go out and get what you're worth. But you gotta be willing to take the hits, and not pointing fingers saying you ain't where you wanna be because of anybody! Cowards do that and You're better than that!
The path is long, but self-surrender makes it short; the way is difficult, but perfect trust makes it easy.

Fire the final bullet only when you are constantly hitting the Bull's eye, till then KEEP PRACTICING.
Failure establishes only this, that our determination to succeed was not strong enough.
Getting defeated is just a temporary notion, giving it up is what makes it permanent.

http://gmatclub.com/forum/1000-sc-notes-at-one-place-in-one-document-with-best-of-explanations-192961.html

Press +1 Kudos, if you think my post gave u a tiny tip.

Kudos [?]: 340 [0], given: 34

VP
Status: There is always something new !!
Affiliations: PMI,QAI Global,eXampleCG
Joined: 08 May 2009
Posts: 1285

Kudos [?]: 281 [0], given: 10

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

### Show Tags

20 May 2011, 05:02
Its A here.Almost entirely is the word making the choice extreme.
_________________

Visit -- http://www.sustainable-sphere.com/
Promote Green Business,Sustainable Living and Green Earth !!

Kudos [?]: 281 [0], given: 10

Manager
Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Posts: 102

Kudos [?]: 32 [0], given: 6

Location: India
Concentration: Operations, General Management
Schools: IIMA (M)
GMAT 1: 640 Q48 V29
GMAT 2: 670 Q49 V31
WE: Supply Chain Management (Military & Defense)
Re: In the years since the city of London imposed strict [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 May 2011, 10:02
what is the oa ??
_________________

lets start again

Kudos [?]: 32 [0], given: 6

Senior Manager
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Posts: 412

Kudos [?]: 340 [0], given: 34

Location: United States
Concentration: Marketing, Technology
Re: In the years since the city of London imposed strict [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 May 2011, 10:32
kamalkicks wrote:
what is the oa ??

OA is A
_________________

If you know what you're worth, then go out and get what you're worth. But you gotta be willing to take the hits, and not pointing fingers saying you ain't where you wanna be because of anybody! Cowards do that and You're better than that!
The path is long, but self-surrender makes it short; the way is difficult, but perfect trust makes it easy.

Fire the final bullet only when you are constantly hitting the Bull's eye, till then KEEP PRACTICING.
Failure establishes only this, that our determination to succeed was not strong enough.
Getting defeated is just a temporary notion, giving it up is what makes it permanent.

http://gmatclub.com/forum/1000-sc-notes-at-one-place-in-one-document-with-best-of-explanations-192961.html

Press +1 Kudos, if you think my post gave u a tiny tip.

Kudos [?]: 340 [0], given: 34

Manager
Joined: 14 Feb 2012
Posts: 226

Kudos [?]: 290 [1], given: 7

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

### Show Tags

03 Apr 2012, 06:44
1
KUDOS
1
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.
_________________

The Best Way to Keep me ON is to give Me KUDOS !!!
If you Like My posts please Consider giving Kudos

Shikhar

Kudos [?]: 290 [1], given: 7

Manager
Joined: 14 Feb 2012
Posts: 226

Kudos [?]: 290 [0], given: 7

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

### Show Tags

03 Apr 2012, 06:45
All of them look like assumptions to me...
The only possible answer i can think of is D .

_________________

The Best Way to Keep me ON is to give Me KUDOS !!!
If you Like My posts please Consider giving Kudos

Shikhar

Kudos [?]: 290 [0], given: 7

Senior Manager
Status: May The Force Be With Me (D-DAY 15 May 2012)
Joined: 06 Jan 2012
Posts: 272

Kudos [?]: 320 [0], given: 16

Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Entrepreneurship
Re: CR......In the years since the city of London imposed [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Apr 2012, 07:01
I feel its A.

What's the OA?

Posted from my mobile device
_________________

Giving +1 kudos is a better way of saying 'Thank You'.

Kudos [?]: 320 [0], given: 16

Intern
Joined: 16 Jan 2012
Posts: 26

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

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

### Show Tags

03 Apr 2012, 11:32
i think it's D ...OA plz..with explanation

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

Manager
Status: If u've ego, u've reached ur limit; if ur humble u've no limit.
Affiliations: IIT
Joined: 04 Mar 2011
Posts: 69

Kudos [?]: 19 [0], given: 30

Location: United States
Concentration: General Management, Marketing
GMAT 1: 720 Q50 V37
GPA: 3.1
Re: CR......In the years since the city of London imposed [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Apr 2012, 17:53
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 went for E.
Conclusion: Similar air-pollution rules should be imposed in other major cities.
the conclusion clearly implies that it's desirable to have increase in bird in and around the city. - so I rejected D
A cannot be the answer because if air pollution is not a problem then conclusion wouldn't have been recommended for other cities.

I felt E is the answer because the argument talks about # of bird species seen - doesn't matter whether actual # of species has increased or not; what argument is concerned about is # of bird species seen
_________________

--Syed
" Some are desperate for success, and therefore destined for it."

Kudos [?]: 19 [0], given: 30

Intern
Joined: 01 May 2011
Posts: 8

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 10

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

### Show Tags

03 Apr 2012, 19:45
I think the answer is D. What is the answer given in the source where you got this question? Please share.

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 10

Manager
Joined: 14 Feb 2012
Posts: 226

Kudos [?]: 290 [1], given: 7

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

### Show Tags

03 Apr 2012, 23:38
1
KUDOS
OA IS A....

Explanation still required...
_________________

The Best Way to Keep me ON is to give Me KUDOS !!!
If you Like My posts please Consider giving Kudos

Shikhar

Kudos [?]: 290 [1], given: 7

Retired Moderator
Status: 2000 posts! I don't know whether I should feel great or sad about it! LOL
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 1635

Kudos [?]: 1105 [0], given: 109

Location: Peru
Schools: Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, MIT & HKS (Government)
WE 1: Economic research
WE 2: Banking
WE 3: Government: Foreign Trade and SMEs
Re: CR......In the years since the city of London imposed [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Apr 2012, 08:45
+1 A

My explanations are the following:

shikhar wrote:
(A) In most major cities, air-pollution problems are caused almost entirely by local industry. - CORRECT: The argument only focuses on the problem of the number of birds. We cannot assume that there are not other air-pollution problems generated by other causes such as cars. (B) Air-pollution regulations on industry have a significant impact on the quality of the air. - The author assumes that there is a causal relationship between the regulations and the quality of air.
(C) The air-pollution problems of other major cities are basically similar to those once suffered by London. - The author must assume that the conditions in other cities are similar to those in London.
(D) An increase in the number of bird species in and around a city is desirable.- The author must assume that the other cities also want a greater number of bird species.
(E) The increased sightings of bird species in and around London reflect an actual increase in the number of species in the area. - I agree that this could also be the answer. But A seems better.

_________________

"Life’s battle doesn’t always go to stronger or faster men; but sooner or later the man who wins is the one who thinks he can."

My Integrated Reasoning Logbook / Diary: http://gmatclub.com/forum/my-ir-logbook-diary-133264.html

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Kudos [?]: 1105 [0], given: 109

Intern
Joined: 09 Sep 2009
Posts: 3

Kudos [?]: 6 [1], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

21 Jul 2012, 13:17
1
KUDOS
Conclusion : Similar air-pollution rules should be imposed in other major cities.
Premise : 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

Now Question asks for an option which is no where related to above as an assumption. SO lets drill down each option and strike it out.

(A) In most major cities, air-pollution problems are caused almost entirely by local industry.
-- This passage is concerned with local industry and this can be one probable assumption which fills the gap between premise and COnclusion. So this option is out .....Striked

(B) Air-pollution regulations on industry have a significant impact on the quality of the air.
---- Lets keep it aside for time being.

(C) The air-pollution problems of other major cities are basically similar to those once suffered by London.
--- London regulation outcome has triggered the conclusion. so its must as assumption. so Striked
(D) An increase in the number of bird species in and around a city is desirable.
---- This is the one result of regulation that triggered the implementation in other cities ....Striked
(E) The increased sightings of bird species in and around London reflect an actual increase in the number of species in the area.
---- This acts as an assumption. If when negated i.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 then there won't be any relevance between the premise and conclusion which will lead to fall of conclusion. So its Striked off

Now Option B is remaining ..." Air-pollution regulations on industry have a significant impact on the quality of the air " : This is the correct answer which doesn't act as any assumption for above conclusion to be drawn. Air quality doesn't quantify in the passage conclusion. Negating this i.e. Air-pollution regulations on industry does not have a significant impact on the quality of the air " doesn't affect the premise as the reason can be different for increase in species number and thus doesn't contradict the conclusion too. B doesn't affect the conclusion what so ever

OA is B

Kudos [?]: 6 [1], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 18 Jul 2012
Posts: 5

Kudos [?]: 15 [1], given: 3

Location: Viet Nam
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Operations
GMAT 1: 640 Q44 V34
GPA: 2.85
In the years since the city of London imposed strict [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Oct 2012, 01:12
1
KUDOS
8
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.

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

Kudos [?]: 15 [1], given: 3

Moderator
Joined: 02 Jul 2012
Posts: 1218

Kudos [?]: 1658 [0], given: 116

Location: India
Concentration: Strategy
GMAT 1: 740 Q49 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Engineering (Energy and Utilities)
Re: In the years since the city of London [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Oct 2012, 05:43
The passage suggests that the number of birds in the city has increased based on the facts that more birds are being seen. But that might not be the case. It may simply be that more of species are flying around than before. But due to the assumption that increased sightings mean increased number of species, the argument holds good.

Although the question would have been more clear had the conclusion been something like,

Similar air-pollution rules should be imposed in other major cities for an increase in the number of bird species.

I would like to know what the source of the question is.
_________________

Did you find this post helpful?... Please let me know through the Kudos button.

Thanks To The Almighty - My GMAT Debrief

GMAT Reading Comprehension: 7 Most Common Passage Types

Kudos [?]: 1658 [0], given: 116

Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 30 Apr 2012
Posts: 798

Kudos [?]: 831 [4], given: 5

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

### Show Tags

22 Oct 2012, 21:11
4
KUDOS
Expert's post
3
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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
_________________

Kyle Widdison | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | Utah

Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Course Reviews | View Instructor Profile

Kudos [?]: 831 [4], given: 5

Intern
Joined: 23 Jan 2012
Posts: 4

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

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

### Show Tags

23 Oct 2012, 13:12
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

I go with E too.

The reason that I didn't choose A is because the author believe that the air-pollution comes from the local industry. Therefore, the city of London set the regulation for local industry to control this problem. This action result in the increase of the number of bird species.

If such 99% of the pollution comes from other sources and the remaining 1% comes from the local industry, the regulation will not work. That's why I think A is an assumption as it shows that the local industry has an enormous impact on the air-pollution.

I'm not quite sure whether my point is correct. Please give me the advice

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

Re: In the years since the city of London imposed strict   [#permalink] 23 Oct 2012, 13:12

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

Display posts from previous: Sort by