It is currently 18 Oct 2017, 22:53

### 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

Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 30 Apr 2012
Posts: 798

Kudos [?]: 831 [2], given: 5

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

### Show Tags

24 Oct 2012, 06:14
2
KUDOS
Expert's post
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Yes, the decision between A and E can be tricky. Let's use negation to take a different view of these 2 choices. Negation is a bit of a challenge for A because it's difficult to form the "negative" version because it's not a binary, yes/no, situation but rather a degree of impact. To negate, we'll change the degree of impact from "almost entirely" to "only partly".

Here are the "negated" assumptions:
A-) In most major cities, air pollution is only PARTLY caused by local industry.
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.

When we negate true assumptions, the negated assumption will effectively destroy the conclusion. Which of the above most effectively destroys the conclusion? In A-, if the regulations on local industry (now only partly responsible for the pollution) still improve the number of species and we can still conclude that these regulations should be applied to other cities, therefore this is NOT a necessary assumption. In E-, if the regulations do not actually impact the number of species, we can no longer conclude that these regulations should be applied to other cities, therefore this IS a necessary assumption. A is the answer.

Does that help?

KW
_________________

Kyle Widdison | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | Utah

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

Kudos [?]: 831 [2], given: 5

Moderator
Joined: 02 Jul 2012
Posts: 1218

Kudos [?]: 1659 [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 imposed strict [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Oct 2012, 06:24
KyleWiddison wrote:
Yes, the decision between A and E can be tricky. Let's use negation to take a different view of these 2 choices. Negation is a bit of a challenge for A because it's difficult to form the "negative" version because it's not a binary, yes/no, situation but rather a degree of impact. To negate, we'll change the degree of impact from "almost entirely" to "only partly".

Here are the "negated" assumptions:
A-) In most major cities, air pollution is only PARTLY caused by local industry.
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.

When we negate true assumptions, the negated assumption will effectively destroy the conclusion. Which of the above most effectively destroys the conclusion? In A-, if the regulations on local industry (now only partly responsible for the pollution) still improve the number of species and we can still conclude that these regulations should be applied to other cities, therefore this is NOT a necessary assumption. In E-, if the regulations do not actually impact the number of species, we can no longer conclude that these regulations should be applied to other cities, therefore this IS a necessary assumption. A is the answer.

Does that help?

KW

Just curious... Is the argument not required to say something like

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

BTW on a different note, you look like a carbon copy of Brandon Routh..
_________________

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 [?]: 1659 [0], given: 116

BSchool Forum Moderator
Status: Flying over the cloud!
Joined: 17 Aug 2011
Posts: 888

Kudos [?]: 718 [0], given: 44

Location: Viet Nam
GMAT Date: 06-06-2014
GPA: 3.07
Re: In the years since the city of London imposed strict [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Oct 2012, 10:38
Actually, I reckon errorly the weight of necessary or importance between choice A and B. I thought that, after negate A and B, these two answer will become

(A) In most major cities, air-pollution problems are at least not caused almost entirely by local industry.

(B) Air-pollution regulations on industry at least do not have a significant impact on the quality of the air. => still have impact on quality of air => I thought this negated one does not attack as strong as choice A
_________________

Rules for posting in verbal gmat forum, read it before posting anything in verbal forum
Giving me + 1 kudos if my post is valuable with you

The more you like my post, the more you share to other's need

CR: Focus of the Week: Must be True Question

Kudos [?]: 718 [0], given: 44

Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 30 Apr 2012
Posts: 798

Kudos [?]: 831 [0], given: 5

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

### Show Tags

25 Oct 2012, 06:13
If we wanted to have a very structured argument with few holes (assumptions) we would explicitly state that these regulations should be imposed on other cities in order to increase the number of species. This is an EXCEPT question, so the GMAT purposely left this argument vague, or open to these assumptions.

Even if this weren't an except question the GMAT would be okay without restating the species premise. The structure of argument has cause/effect premises with a conclusion that recommends the cause be implemented in other areas implying that the same effect will be achieved. It's like me saying, I studied the GMAT while standing on my head and I got a great score, so you should study the GMAT while standing on your head. I don't have to restate the effect, because it's implied from the basic structure of my argument.

That's the first time I've been told I look like Brandon Routh. Maybe I should be Superman for Halloween.

KW
_________________

Kyle Widdison | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | Utah

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

Kudos [?]: 831 [0], given: 5

Director
Joined: 03 Aug 2012
Posts: 899

Kudos [?]: 885 [0], given: 322

Concentration: General Management, General Management
GMAT 1: 630 Q47 V29
GMAT 2: 680 Q50 V32
GPA: 3.7
WE: Information Technology (Investment Banking)
Re: In the years since the city of London imposed strict [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Feb 2013, 22:32
(E) The increased sightings of bird species in and around London reflect an actual increase in the number of species in the area.

If increase in birds seen doesn't imply increase in Birds species .

This shows there is no use of implementing same regulations in other cities when London doesn't have stated affect.
Conclusion falls apart after negating (E).Hence , an assumption
_________________

Rgds,
TGC!
_____________________________________________________________________
I Assisted You => KUDOS Please
_____________________________________________________________________________

Kudos [?]: 885 [0], given: 322

Senior Manager
Joined: 22 Nov 2010
Posts: 287

Kudos [?]: 174 [0], given: 75

Location: India
GMAT 1: 670 Q49 V33
WE: Consulting (Telecommunications)
Re: In the years since the city of London imposed strict [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Feb 2013, 03:26
shikhar 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.

Isn't D a strengthener? Experts please explains the PoE
_________________

YOU CAN, IF YOU THINK YOU CAN

Kudos [?]: 174 [0], given: 75

VP
Status: Final Lap Up!!!
Affiliations: NYK Line
Joined: 21 Sep 2012
Posts: 1077

Kudos [?]: 648 [0], given: 70

Location: India
GMAT 1: 410 Q35 V11
GMAT 2: 530 Q44 V20
GMAT 3: 630 Q45 V31
GPA: 3.84
WE: Engineering (Transportation)
Re: In the years since the city of London imposed strict [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Feb 2013, 13:00
greatps24 wrote:
shikhar 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.

Isn't D a strengthener? Experts please explains the PoE

Hi great apps
I did not get your doubt ....Did you opt for D because its strengthening....Moreover its not an strengthener its just an assumption ...basis on the last sentence of the argument.....that Similar rules needs to be implemented in other cities as well.

If you go through powerscore guide .....it says that diffeerence between sterngthening and assumption is very thin.....Infact,In case of cause and effect argument the answers considered right for strengthen question will also stand for assumption questions.....

Consider kudos if my post helps!!!!

Archit

Kudos [?]: 648 [0], given: 70

Manager
Joined: 31 Jul 2010
Posts: 110

Kudos [?]: 35 [2], given: 3

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

### Show Tags

25 Feb 2013, 23:09
2
KUDOS
17
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.
_________________

it would be great if some instructor can answer this question as the explainations given and oa are not convincing to me

Thanks
Sidd

Kudos [?]: 35 [2], given: 3

Director
Joined: 05 Sep 2010
Posts: 831

Kudos [?]: 282 [1], given: 61

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

### Show Tags

26 Feb 2013, 01:08
1
KUDOS
the most problematic word in A is almost entirely .it might be a case that local industries are not contributing almost entirely to air pollution but significantly enough so as putting rules into effect will bring down pollution level

Kudos [?]: 282 [1], given: 61

Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4422

Kudos [?]: 8432 [5], given: 102

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

### Show Tags

22 Apr 2013, 12:16
5
KUDOS
Expert's post
3
This post was
BOOKMARKED
siddharth86 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.

fameatop wrote:
Hi Mike,
I am not able to understand how come option B is incorrect & A is correct. Can you kindly clear my doubts. Waiting eagerly for your valuable inputs. Regards, Fame

I like this question.

As for (B) --- The purpose of "air-pollution regulations on industry" is to improve the air quality. Of course, if the regulations are poorly written, they might not achieve this purpose. This argument talks about passing these regulations, and then it talk about more birds --- what's the link? The link has to be --- the regulations worked, that is to say, they achieved the end for which they were designed. Notice that the opposite of this ---- "air-pollution regulations on industry have little effect on air quality" ---- would be a crippling objection to this argument. (B) is a bonafide assumption.

By contrast, (A) contains those problematic word "almost entirely" --- any all-inclusive language (all, every, each one, always, etc. etc.) is very very hard to demonstrate and justify. There are always exceptions. Without reading the prompt at all, I figured out this was the one that wasn't an assumption --- the language is too extreme.
Suppose there's are many cities in which local industry is responsible for, say, 40% of the city's air pollution problem, and cars are responsible for 60%. Many post-industrial cities, such as San Francisco, have little in the way of traditional industries, but they have a lot of car traffic. This is a scenario in which (A) is false, yet even if only some of the air pollution problem is caused by local industries, reducing what air pollution is caused by the industries would still be a worthwhile goal. We can negate (A) and still justify the argument, so (A) is not an assumption.

For more on assumptions, see this blog:
http://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/arguments- ... -the-gmat/

Mike
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Kudos [?]: 8432 [5], given: 102

Manager
Status: struggling with GMAT
Joined: 06 Dec 2012
Posts: 205

Kudos [?]: 435 [0], given: 46

Concentration: Accounting
GMAT Date: 04-06-2013
GPA: 3.65
Re: In the years since the city of London imposed strict [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Apr 2013, 14:16
siddharth86 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.
_________________

it would be great if some instructor can answer this question as the explainations given and oa are not convincing to me

Thanks
Sidd

I picked D...................

Kudos [?]: 435 [0], given: 46

Director
Joined: 03 Aug 2012
Posts: 899

Kudos [?]: 885 [0], given: 322

Concentration: General Management, General Management
GMAT 1: 630 Q47 V29
GMAT 2: 680 Q50 V32
GPA: 3.7
WE: Information Technology (Investment Banking)
Re: In the years since the city of London imposed strict [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Apr 2014, 22:50
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.

Assumption Except.

Should be (A). after seeing 'almost entirely' by phrase

Regulations are targeted on local industry. So, if in most major cities problems are not caused almost entirely by local industry, then conclusion doesn't fall since there can be minor problems from local industry which can be rectified by imposing regulations.

The keyword here is 'almost entirely'.

(D). says an assumption, if the goal is not desired then why should similar rules be imposed in other major cities.
_________________

Rgds,
TGC!
_____________________________________________________________________
I Assisted You => KUDOS Please
_____________________________________________________________________________

Kudos [?]: 885 [0], given: 322

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10118

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

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

### Show Tags

13 Jul 2014, 07:51
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: 10118

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

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

### Show Tags

28 Sep 2014, 15:47
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: 10118

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

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

### Show Tags

09 Nov 2014, 11:10
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: 10118

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

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

### Show Tags

29 Jan 2015, 01:47
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

Intern
Joined: 17 Sep 2013
Posts: 41

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

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

### Show Tags

24 Mar 2015, 01:07
A - It is not necessarily to be true. Even if the local industry is not the major cause for pollution, the law can have positive impacts on pollution problems. CORRECT.
B - If it does not, then the law is ineffective. Thus, it should not be spread widely.
C - If it does not, the success lessons from London cannot be applied elsewhere.
D - Yes. Because it is the evidence that the argument uses for his/her conclusion justification.
E - Yes, it is what the argument implies.

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

Optimus Prep Instructor
Joined: 06 Nov 2014
Posts: 1905

Kudos [?]: 522 [0], given: 23

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

### Show Tags

21 May 2015, 01:55
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. Even if air pollution problems are almost entirely caused by local industry in London, it doesn't mean that that's the case for most major cities.
(B) Air-pollution regulations on industry have a significant impact on the quality of the air. The regulations wouldn't be recommended if they didn't have a significant impact.
(C) The air-pollution problems of other major cities are basically similar to those once suffered by London. If the problems weren't the same, the same solution wouldn't be recommended.
(D) An increase in the number of bird species in and around a city is desirable. It wouldn't be cited as evidence of success of the regulations if this weren't desirable.
(E) The increased sightings of bird species in and around London reflect an actual increase in the number of species in the area. There is no effect on the air if the sightings have only increased but the true number of species hasn't.
_________________

# Janielle Williams

Customer Support

Special Offer: \$80-100/hr. Online Private Tutoring
GMAT On Demand Course \$299
Free Online Trial Hour

Kudos [?]: 522 [0], given: 23

Intern
Joined: 29 Apr 2013
Posts: 19

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 9

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

### Show Tags

07 Jun 2015, 21:59
Very confusing, should be A, it has strong language "almost entirely" ,
_________________

“It’s not that I’m so smart; it’s just that I stay with problems longer.” - Albert Einstein
"Kirib chiqma, bilib chiq."
"Век живи́ - век учи́сь."

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 9

Intern
Joined: 07 Jun 2015
Posts: 1

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

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

### Show Tags

07 Jun 2015, 23:47
I have a big problem with answer B. The argument doesn't actually assume that the change in air quality is significant. The argument just assumes that whatever effect the regulations had was enough to impact bird life, but that impact could be remarkably minor. The impact need not be significant to influence the avian ecosystem around London.

It strikes me that a big part of the reason that this question is rated so hard is that it's flawed. There are two correct answers here:

The argument neither assumes A, nor B.

Does anyone know 1000 questions source? Where did this list of questions originally come from?

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

Re: In the years since the city of London imposed strict   [#permalink] 07 Jun 2015, 23:47

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

Display posts from previous: Sort by