GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 19 Sep 2018, 09:53

# LIVE NOW:

Missing Clues in Data Sufficiency - Chat With Veritas  |  Kellogg & INSEAD R1 Apps Due TODAY - Join MBA Chat Room to Get Last-Minute Doubts Cleard

### 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

# In the years since the city of London imposed strict

Author Message
Director
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
Posts: 735
In the years since the city of London imposed strict  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Jul 2008, 15:36
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

43% (00:47) correct 57% (00:51) wrong based on 5 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.

Stumble on this question. Can you provide explanation?

--== Message from the GMAT Club Team ==--

THERE IS LIKELY A BETTER DISCUSSION OF THIS EXACT QUESTION.
This discussion does not meet community quality standards. It has been retired.

If you would like to discuss this question please re-post it in the respective forum. Thank you!

To review the GMAT Club's Forums Posting Guidelines, please follow these links: Quantitative | Verbal Please note - we may remove posts that do not follow our posting guidelines. Thank you.
VP
Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1320
Re: CR: London strict air-pollution regulations  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Jul 2008, 15:58

Try solving it by finding which one of them can be an assumption

I am not sure the mods are cool with other website links. But the link below has some good discussion on this Q

http://www.beatthegmat.com/cant-underst ... 13362.html
Senior Manager
Joined: 12 Apr 2008
Posts: 498
Location: Eastern Europe
Schools: Oxford
Re: CR: London strict air-pollution regulations  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Jul 2008, 17:38
Yes! This question should never die!

It was discussed many times here as well. Just a couple of links:
http://www.gmatclub.com/forum/11-p446649
http://www.gmatclub.com/forum/11-t62671
http://www.gmatclub.com/forum/11-t45627

The key is the words ‘almost entirely’ in option A. They make A too strong for an assumption and thus, A is the correct answer.
Director
Joined: 26 Jul 2007
Posts: 507
Schools: Stern, McCombs, Marshall, Wharton
Re: CR: London strict air-pollution regulations  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Jul 2008, 07:09
I get A.

Nowhere in the argument does it address the degree to which air pollution is affected by the local industry. The only thing we can assume is that the regulations decrease the pollution.

So for example the local industry could account for 30% of the pollution. The new regulations could decrease that 30% to 5%. But other industries could account for 70% of the pollution that still remains. As previously stated the phrase 'almost entirely' is too extreme of an assumption.
Manager
Joined: 25 Nov 2006
Posts: 240
Re: CR: London strict air-pollution regulations  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Jul 2008, 08:53
I agree with Gixxer. It must be A, for one that its too extreme an assumption to say that 'air-pollution problems are caused almost entirely by local industry' .

Maybe not, maybe its easiest to control air pollution caused by local industry than anything else ....and hence the plan would be more effective if implemented only on local industries.

Is it the OA?
Manager
Joined: 27 Jun 2008
Posts: 140
Re: CR: London strict air-pollution regulations  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Jul 2008, 09:41
I think "Entirely" is the key. Maybe A. OA pls.
Director
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
Posts: 735
Re: CR: London strict air-pollution regulations  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Jul 2008, 16:37
Thanks All.

I missed "EXCEPT" portion - Answer: A
Manager
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 224
Location: nj
Re: CR: London strict air-pollution regulations  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Jul 2008, 13:21
I think its B because it was never assumed or stated that the increase in bird species is due to cleaner air.
Director
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 628
Re: CR: London strict air-pollution regulations  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Jul 2008, 13:28
hanumayamma 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.

Stumble on this question. Can you provide explanation?

What's wrong with 'D'
Director
Joined: 26 Jul 2007
Posts: 507
Schools: Stern, McCombs, Marshall, Wharton
Re: CR: London strict air-pollution regulations  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Jul 2008, 13:33
rao_1857 wrote:
hanumayamma 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.

Stumble on this question. Can you provide explanation?

What's wrong with 'D'

Why would you impose regulations that increase the number of bird species if you didn't want an increase in the number of bird species? With the information given you can assume the increase is desirable.
Director
Joined: 26 Jul 2007
Posts: 507
Schools: Stern, McCombs, Marshall, Wharton
Re: CR: London strict air-pollution regulations  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Jul 2008, 13:42
neeshpal wrote:
I think its B because it was never assumed or stated that the increase in bird species is due to cleaner air.

An assumption is never stated, that's what makes it an assumption. If it was stated then it would be a premise.

The only reason you would impose pollution regulations on other cities were if they worked. The argument is using the increase in bird species to assume that the regulations reduce pollution. Without this assumption the conclusion falls apart.

Premise: 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.

Conclusion: Similar air-pollution rules should be imposed in other major cities.

Any unstated premise is an assumption. We must assume the regulations work or we cant reach the conclusion that they should be imposed on other major cities.
Manager
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 224
Location: nj
Re: CR: London strict air-pollution regulations  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Jul 2008, 20:33
I hope i am right in explaining this..i may be wrong..but here's my 2c.

If we are concluding that "Similar air-pollution rules should be imposed in other major cities" then it means that we have already assumed that "In most major cities, air-pollution problems are caused almost entirely by local industry"
Also "Similar air regulation rules" helps us to determine that this assumption (assumption A) was made in the argument and thats why we reached the conclusion that it should be imposed in other major cities.

The question asks us to identify the assumption that is NOT made in the argument or in other words an assumption that for which we can not find a glimpse in the argument.

i think b is that assumption because the number of birds increases most probably because of cleaner air but where does that cleaner air came from?. our assumption is that the air was cleaned due to the regulations and which in turn increases the number of bird that is seen in and around london. But there is nothing in this argument that can tell us that this assumption was made.
Director
Joined: 26 Jul 2007
Posts: 507
Schools: Stern, McCombs, Marshall, Wharton
Re: CR: London strict air-pollution regulations  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Jul 2008, 06:26
neeshpal wrote:
I hope i am right in explaining this..i may be wrong..but here's my 2c.

If we are concluding that "Similar air-pollution rules should be imposed in other major cities" then it means that we have already assumed that "In most major cities, air-pollution problems are caused almost entirely by local industry"
Also "Similar air regulation rules" helps us to determine that this assumption (assumption A) was made in the argument and thats why we reached the conclusion that it should be imposed in other major cities.

The question asks us to identify the assumption that is NOT made in the argument or in other words an assumption that for which we can not find a glimpse in the argument.

i think b is that assumption because the number of birds increases most probably because of cleaner air but where does that cleaner air came from?. our assumption is that the air was cleaned due to the regulations and which in turn increases the number of bird that is seen in and around london. But there is nothing in this argument that can tell us that this assumption was made.

I think you may be looking at this a little different.

Each of the following is an assumption made in the argument above EXCEPT:

There are 5 answer choices. 4 are assumptions and 1 is NOT an assumption.

A. In most major cities, air-pollution problems are caused almost entirely by local industry.
This is not an assumption. We do assume that some air-pollution is cause by local industries but not ALMOST ENTIRELY by local industries. All we know is that we assume that the regulations reduce some pollution. The actual amount we are unsure of.
B. Air-pollution regulations on industry have a significant impact on the quality of the air.
We definite assume this. We would not want to impose them on other cities if we didn't think that they worked.
C. The air-pollution problems of other major cities are basically similar to those once suffered by London.
We definitely assume this. We wouldn't impose these regulations that work in London if other cities air-pollution problems weren't similar.
D. An increase in the number of bird species in and around a city is desirable.
We definitely assume this. we wouldn't impose regulations that lead to more birds if we didn't want more birds.
E. The increased sightings of bird species in and around London reflect an actual increase in the number of species in the area.
We definitely assume this. If there were actually less birds and we just happened to see more birds one day this would go against our conclusion that the regulations are working.
Manager
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 224
Location: nj
Re: CR: London strict air-pollution regulations  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Jul 2008, 06:52
whats the OA for this question.
Director
Joined: 26 Jul 2007
Posts: 507
Schools: Stern, McCombs, Marshall, Wharton
Re: CR: London strict air-pollution regulations  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Jul 2008, 06:59
neeshpal wrote:
whats the OA for this question.

OA is A, it has already been posted.
Senior Manager
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Posts: 389
Location: United States
Concentration: Marketing, Technology
Re: CR: London strict air-pollution regulations  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 May 2011, 04:00
gixxer1000 wrote:
neeshpal wrote:
I hope i am right in explaining this..i may be wrong..but here's my 2c.

If we are concluding that "Similar air-pollution rules should be imposed in other major cities" then it means that we have already assumed that "In most major cities, air-pollution problems are caused almost entirely by local industry"
Also "Similar air regulation rules" helps us to determine that this assumption (assumption A) was made in the argument and thats why we reached the conclusion that it should be imposed in other major cities.

The question asks us to identify the assumption that is NOT made in the argument or in other words an assumption that for which we can not find a glimpse in the argument.

i think b is that assumption because the number of birds increases most probably because of cleaner air but where does that cleaner air came from?. our assumption is that the air was cleaned due to the regulations and which in turn increases the number of bird that is seen in and around london. But there is nothing in this argument that can tell us that this assumption was made.

I think you may be looking at this a little different.

Each of the following is an assumption made in the argument above EXCEPT:

There are 5 answer choices. 4 are assumptions and 1 is NOT an assumption.

A. In most major cities, air-pollution problems are caused almost entirely by local industry.
This is not an assumption. We do assume that some air-pollution is cause by local industries but not ALMOST ENTIRELY by local industries. All we know is that we assume that the regulations reduce some pollution. The actual amount we are unsure of.
B. Air-pollution regulations on industry have a significant impact on the quality of the air.
We definite assume this. We would not want to impose them on other cities if we didn't think that they worked.
C. The air-pollution problems of other major cities are basically similar to those once suffered by London.
We definitely assume this. We wouldn't impose these regulations that work in London if other cities air-pollution problems weren't similar.
D. An increase in the number of bird species in and around a city is desirable.
We definitely assume this. we wouldn't impose regulations that lead to more birds if we didn't want more birds.
E. The increased sightings of bird species in and around London reflect an actual increase in the number of species in the area.
We definitely assume this. If there were actually less birds and we just happened to see more birds one day this would go against our conclusion that the regulations are working.

Below is the causal argument in stimulus of this question.
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.

The stimulus clearly says that Rules and Regulations have been applied only on local industry. To add to it, it is a fact and cant be questioned unlike the conclusion and assumption in a CR. If a fact in stimulus says that regulations/rules have been applied specifically on local industry and it has resulted in increase of bird species, then air regulations should be the only reason for increase in bird species as per CAUSAL Reasoning CR concept. This is exactly what A talks about.

Doing a denial test on option A will say that
Quote:
air-pollution problems are not caused almost entirely by local industry.
This will destroy the conclusion as it will mean that there are other sources of pollution and implementing "rules and regulations on local industry" wont help. If they(rules and regulations on local industry) wont help, conclusion of implementing same rules and regulations on local industries in other cities will also fall. So A should be an assumption

For E, "number of species in the area" is suspicious. Performing a denial test on this sentence will give "The increased sightings of bird species in and around London does not reflect an actual increase in the number of species in the area." I am not sure how this will affect the conclusion which deals with pollution.

Though, an increase sighting of bird species in a region can be owed to lesser pollution, but we cant focus on other species as they(other species like algae, bacteria) may have started increasing due to other factors including pollution.

Corrections on my stand are welcome

--== Message from the GMAT Club Team ==--

THERE IS LIKELY A BETTER DISCUSSION OF THIS EXACT QUESTION.
This discussion does not meet community quality standards. It has been retired.

If you would like to discuss this question please re-post it in the respective forum. Thank you!

To review the GMAT Club's Forums Posting Guidelines, please follow these links: Quantitative | Verbal Please note - we may remove posts that do not follow our posting guidelines. Thank you.

_________________

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.

Re: CR: London strict air-pollution regulations &nbs [#permalink] 20 May 2011, 04:00
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# In the years since the city of London imposed strict

Moderators: GMATNinja, GMATNinjaTwo

# Events & Promotions

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.