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

 It is currently 29 May 2017, 09:30

Today:

Memorial Day - GMAT Club Tests are Open without Subscription

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: 04 Dec 2008
Posts: 102
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 197 [0], given: 2

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

Show Tags

05 Feb 2009, 06:46
3
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

56% (02:04) correct 44% (01:13) wrong based on 86 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.
If you have any questions
New!
VP
Joined: 18 May 2008
Posts: 1265
Followers: 17

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

Show Tags

05 Feb 2009, 07:02
It should be B
We are not talking of the quality of air.All other choices are related to the argument
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.
Manager
Joined: 17 Dec 2008
Posts: 176
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 142 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

05 Feb 2009, 07:49
A. In A, . "entirely" by local industry is not assumed, could have been most of the impact.
Director
Joined: 01 Aug 2008
Posts: 737
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 696 [0], given: 99

Show Tags

05 Feb 2009, 09:17
IMO E.
Manager
Joined: 20 Mar 2007
Posts: 59
Followers: 1

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

Show Tags

05 Feb 2009, 09:41
Am going with E.What is the OA?
Director
Joined: 25 Oct 2006
Posts: 640
Followers: 14

Kudos [?]: 558 [0], given: 6

Show Tags

05 Feb 2009, 10:21
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.
- TRUE
(B) Air-pollution regulations on industry have a significant impact on the quality of the air.
- Tempting to me though could be true
(C) The air-pollution problems of other major cities are basically similar to those once suffered by London.
-TRUE
(D) An increase in the number of bird species in and around a city is desirable.
- TRUE
(E) The increased sightings of bird species in and around London reflect an actual increase in the number of species in the -area.
- "Sighting" is not mentioned anywhere in stem. Probably the best winner.

IMO E.
_________________

If You're Not Living On The Edge, You're Taking Up Too Much Space

Retired Moderator
Joined: 18 Jul 2008
Posts: 975
Followers: 10

Kudos [?]: 219 [0], given: 5

Show Tags

05 Feb 2009, 11:04
A)
Director
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 816
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 73 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

05 Feb 2009, 11:43
A argument does not assume that local industry does most of the polluting
Manager
Joined: 04 Dec 2008
Posts: 102
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 197 [0], given: 2

Show Tags

05 Feb 2009, 21:51
My answer was between A and E as well. A "entirely' is too extreme where else for E "sighting" not mentioned.

OA: A
VP
Joined: 18 May 2008
Posts: 1265
Followers: 17

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

Show Tags

05 Feb 2009, 21:52
Can we hv the OA pls?
Manager
Joined: 10 Jan 2009
Posts: 104
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 39 [3] , given: 2

Show Tags

05 Feb 2009, 21:58
3
KUDOS
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
Director
Joined: 01 Aug 2008
Posts: 737
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 696 [0], given: 99

Show Tags

06 Feb 2009, 09:19
OK I agree. 'almost' made A for the candidate. but still why E is wrong? any one can put some light on it?

Thanks.
Retired Moderator
Joined: 18 Jul 2008
Posts: 975
Followers: 10

Kudos [?]: 219 [1] , given: 5

Show Tags

06 Feb 2009, 09:44
1
KUDOS
E is wrong because we assume that the increase of bird species is related to ACTUAL increases in bird, rather than MORE people calling in with "sightings".

Suppose you have 100 birds - but instead of having 10 people calling in, now you have 50 people calling in.

Does that mean that there are more birds? nope. We still have 100. It just means that there are more people reporting them.

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.
GMAT Tutor
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 1179
Followers: 438

Kudos [?]: 1606 [4] , given: 4

Show Tags

06 Feb 2009, 09:46
4
KUDOS
Expert's post
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
The answer must be A here - we know that pollution regulations on local industry in London have helped increase the number of birds. Presumably local industry then produces a significant amount of pollution, so the regulations may have helped to reduce pollution overall. Still, local industry does not need to be 'entirely' responsible for the pollution in order for regulations to help matters. Perhaps local industry only created 25% of the total pollution, but the regulations cut local industry pollution to zero; that would still have a significant impact on air quality.

If you bring outside opinions to the argument, E might be tempting - if you think reducing air pollution is good in and of itself, then E might not seem relevant. Still, if we analyze the argument -- Regulations in London led to more birds. Therefore these regulations are good and should be adopted by other cities. -- we see that the *only* reason the author gives for introducing regulations is to increase the number of birds - surely the author is assuming that's a good thing if he or she is proposing other cities introduce the same regulations.
_________________

GMAT Tutor in Toronto

If you are looking for online GMAT math tutoring, or if you are interested in buying my advanced Quant books and problem sets, please contact me at ianstewartgmat at gmail.com

Director
Joined: 01 Aug 2008
Posts: 737
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 696 [0], given: 99

Show Tags

06 Feb 2009, 10:56
Director
Joined: 25 Aug 2007
Posts: 941
WE 1: 3.5 yrs IT
WE 2: 2.5 yrs Retail chain
Followers: 77

Kudos [?]: 1330 [0], given: 40

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

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10303
Followers: 1001

Kudos [?]: 225 [0], given: 0

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

Show Tags

28 Jun 2015, 03:30
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.
Intern
Joined: 30 Jun 2014
Posts: 37
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 16 [0], given: 74

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

Show Tags

29 Jun 2015, 09:59
Hi,

Thanks to VerbalBot for bumping up this question; it seems like a good one for Sub-600 level.

My doubt here is that since this is an 'Assumption EXCEPT' question, we need to find the option which isn't taken into account or basically, which contributes nothing to the argument (i.e., neutral). Given this, A-D could all qualify as assumptions, however, E does nothing much to the argument. Based on this reasoning, I selected E.

Am I off-topic here? Could someone please guide me in the right direction?

Thank you.
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10303
Followers: 1001

Kudos [?]: 225 [0], given: 0

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

Show Tags

26 Aug 2016, 18:47
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.
Re: In the years since the city of London imposed strict   [#permalink] 26 Aug 2016, 18:47
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
3 In the years since the city of London imposed strict 11 10 Apr 2014, 22:50
4 In the years since the city of London imposed strict 9 30 Mar 2016, 12:02
28 In the years since the city of London imposed strict 16 08 Sep 2016, 05:47
3 In the years since the city of London imposed strict 14 02 Sep 2016, 06:38
1 In the years since the city of London imposed strict 4 21 Jul 2012, 13:17
Display posts from previous: Sort by

In the years since the city of London imposed strict

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO 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®.