Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases https://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 25 May 2017, 03:55

### 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
VP
Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 1352
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 678 [0], given: 10

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

### Show Tags

19 Mar 2008, 17:27
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 100% (00:03) wrong based on 2 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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.

SVP
Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 2476
Followers: 70

Kudos [?]: 774 [0], given: 19

### Show Tags

20 Mar 2008, 09:18
goalsnr 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 am not sure of "Denial test" but this what how I do:

A. "almost"? not sure.
B. it is assumed.
C. similar? yes.
(D) Desirable? yes.
(E) sightings of bird species reflect an actual increase? not sure.

so I am in between A and E. "almost" in A is extreme, so A is most linkely.
_________________

Gmat: http://gmatclub.com/forum/everything-you-need-to-prepare-for-the-gmat-revised-77983.html

GT

Manager
Joined: 14 Mar 2008
Posts: 131
Followers: 1

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

### Show Tags

20 Mar 2008, 09:26
goalsnr 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.

(E) the actual number of species doesn't even matter to the arguement. The conclusion is more birds seen in city A, then city B should do that too.
Manager
Joined: 28 Sep 2007
Posts: 211
Followers: 1

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

### Show Tags

20 Mar 2008, 11:07
It is A. There is no evidence that pollution is entirely from local business.

E is ok because it talks about the species in the reading. It doesnt matter but it is part of the argument.
CEO
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 3586
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Other
Schools: Chicago (Booth) - Class of 2011
GMAT 1: 750 Q50 V40
Followers: 574

Kudos [?]: 3976 [0], given: 360

### Show Tags

20 Mar 2008, 11:23
A is clearly an assumption here!

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.

"Denial test" for A:

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

It destroys the argument. Regulation on local industry will not affect birds in most major cities.

Only E remains
_________________

HOT! GMAT TOOLKIT 2 (iOS) / GMAT TOOLKIT (Android) - The OFFICIAL GMAT CLUB PREP APP, a must-have app especially if you aim at 700+ | PrepGame

Manager
Joined: 28 Sep 2007
Posts: 211
Followers: 1

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

### Show Tags

20 Mar 2008, 12:33
CEO
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 3586
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Other
Schools: Chicago (Booth) - Class of 2011
GMAT 1: 750 Q50 V40
Followers: 574

Kudos [?]: 3976 [0], given: 360

### Show Tags

20 Mar 2008, 12:41
When I saw this question for the fist time, I chose D. Bud this time it is clear for me that "is desirable" => "should be imposed"
_________________

HOT! GMAT TOOLKIT 2 (iOS) / GMAT TOOLKIT (Android) - The OFFICIAL GMAT CLUB PREP APP, a must-have app especially if you aim at 700+ | PrepGame

VP
Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 1352
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 678 [0], given: 10

### Show Tags

20 Mar 2008, 19:53
I will make an attempt to explain how I reached the answer.

Denial test:
DENY the assumption, and see what effect that has on the argument.It the denial breaks the argument, the assumption is necessary.

Now summarize the argument :
The number of bird species seen in and around London has increased dramatically .Similar strict air pollution laws must be imposed in other cities

A) In most major cities, air-pollution problems are NOT caused almost entirely by local industry. ->Doesnot break the conclusion.There could be other sources for pollution.
B) Air-pollution regulations on industry DOES NOT have a significant impact on the quality of the air. ->Then there is no reason to impose the regulations. Breaks the conclusion.
(C) The air-pollution problems of other major cities are NOT basically similar to those once suffered by London. ->Then why impose similar laws?Breaks the conclusion
(D) An increase in the number of bird species in and around a city is NOT desirable. ->same as B.Breaks the conclusion
(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 ->That implies th enew regulations did not do any good.Break the conclusion

OA is A
CEO
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 3586
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Other
Schools: Chicago (Booth) - Class of 2011
GMAT 1: 750 Q50 V40
Followers: 574

Kudos [?]: 3976 [0], given: 360

### Show Tags

20 Mar 2008, 21:55
I disagree with OA!

In E the argument claims that the main purpose: increase in the number of bird species seen in and around London

Denial test

(E) The increased sightings of bird species in and around London don't reflect an actual increase in the number of species in the area.

Why do we need here the actual increase? Maybe birds don't like fly in polluted air as we don't like swim in polluted river. More people - cleaner river but the same number people in the area. What the author is going to reach in the most cities? Increase in the actual number of birds or in the number of seen birds?

decrease in pollution --> increase in the number of seen birds --> decrease in pollution works! --> should be implemented in
the the most cities.

Discussion must go on !

_________________

HOT! GMAT TOOLKIT 2 (iOS) / GMAT TOOLKIT (Android) - The OFFICIAL GMAT CLUB PREP APP, a must-have app especially if you aim at 700+ | PrepGame

SVP
Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 2476
Followers: 70

Kudos [?]: 774 [0], given: 19

### Show Tags

20 Mar 2008, 22:53
The passage says that the reduced polution caused increase in the no. of bird species seen in and arround london. So, how the passage is measuring the effect of "strict air-polution regulation"? by sightings. if the increase in number of bird species seen does not reflect the actual, then no use of such regulation. therefore, E is assumed.

why and how I chose A, its too extream i.e. "almost entirely", which means air-polution by the local industry is the only polution. this is no where assumed and indicated in the passage. therefore, i leaned to A.

better explanations are welcomed.

goalsnr 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.

_________________

Gmat: http://gmatclub.com/forum/everything-you-need-to-prepare-for-the-gmat-revised-77983.html

GT

CEO
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 3586
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Other
Schools: Chicago (Booth) - Class of 2011
GMAT 1: 750 Q50 V40
Followers: 574

Kudos [?]: 3976 [0], given: 360

### Show Tags

21 Mar 2008, 00:16
GMAT TIGER wrote:
The passage says that the reduced polution caused increase in the no. of bird species seen in and arround london. So, how the passage is measuring the effect of "strict air-polution regulation"? by sightings. if the increase in number of bird species seen does not reflect the actual, then no use of such regulation. therefore, E is assumed.

why and how I chose A, its too extream i.e. "almost entirely", which means air-polution by the local industry is the only polution. this is no where assumed and indicated in the passage. therefore, i leaned to A.

better explanations are welcomed.

Thanks, Tiger. Now I have doubt about my attitude to A but I still disagree in necessity of increase in the actual number of birds...Maybe E helps to exclude possibility of increase in the number of bird species seen in and around London with simultaneous decrease in the actual number of birds.........
_________________

HOT! GMAT TOOLKIT 2 (iOS) / GMAT TOOLKIT (Android) - The OFFICIAL GMAT CLUB PREP APP, a must-have app especially if you aim at 700+ | PrepGame

VP
Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 1352
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 678 [0], given: 10

### Show Tags

21 Mar 2008, 07:35
walker wrote:
:evil: I disagree with OA!

In E the argument claims that the main purpose: increase in the number of bird species seen in and around London

Denial test

(E) The increased sightings of bird species in and around London don't reflect an actual increase in the number of species in the area.

Why do we need here the actual increase? Maybe birds don't like fly in polluted air as we don't like swim in polluted river. More people - cleaner river but the same number people in the area. What the author is going to reach in the most cities? Increase in the actual number of birds or in the number of seen birds?

decrease in pollution --> increase in the number of seen birds --> decrease in pollution works! --> should be implemented in
the the most cities.

Discussion must go on !

>>>>>>The increase in the numbers of birds indicate the new regulations are working to improve the quality of air.So it is a valid assumption.
Re: CR-Denial test   [#permalink] 21 Mar 2008, 07:35
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
In the years since the city of London imposed strict 3 04 May 2008, 08:01
1 In the years since the city of London imposed strict 6 29 Jan 2008, 02:41
In the years since the city of London imposed strict 9 29 Oct 2007, 20:35
In the years since the city of London imposed strict 3 06 Jul 2007, 04:29
In the years since the city of London imposed strict 8 27 Jun 2007, 01:49
Display posts from previous: Sort by