GMAT Question of the Day: Daily via email | Daily via Instagram New to GMAT Club? Watch this Video

 It is currently 28 Jan 2020, 22:49

### 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 air-pollution reg

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 27 Sep 2008
Posts: 13
In the years since the city of London imposed strict air-pollution reg  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Oct 2008, 08:49
6
32
00:00

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

21% (01:44) correct 79% (01:45) wrong based on 1373 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.（A）
(E) The increased sightings of bird species in and around London reflect an actual increase in the number of species in the area.
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4475
Re: In the years since the city of London imposed strict air-pollution reg  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Apr 2013, 12:16
7
3
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

Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)
Senior Manager
Joined: 25 Feb 2010
Posts: 261
Re: In the years since the city of London imposed strict air-pollution reg  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Sep 2010, 14:16
5
The argument says, essentially, "London imposed air pollution laws. The number of birds went up. Therefore the rules should be applied everywhere."

It's an unstated assumption that having more birds is a good thing; it's the only justification for improving air quality that is provided. So D is one of the assumptions.

we should apply London's rules elsewhere assumes other cities are similar: C is an assumption.

The increased sightings of birds actually represents an increase in the number of birds is another assumption: E is also assumed.

Between B & A, i'll go with A
because

The argument does not assume that local industry is 'almost entirely' the source of air pollution. It only assumes that regulation on local industry will have a positive effect.
_________________
GGG (Gym / GMAT / Girl) -- Be Serious

Its your duty to post OA afterwards; some one must be waiting for that...
##### General Discussion
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Affiliations: ManhattanGMAT
Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Posts: 328
Location: San Francisco
Re: In the years since the city of London imposed strict air-pollution reg  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Mar 2010, 13:44
6
Hey All,

Enough debate and confusion about this one to merit a full on study. So let's do the big old outline and such:

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.

Conclusion: Rules should be imposed in other major cities
Premise: Since rules imposed in London, bird species seen in and around has increased
Assumptions: [Without looking at the answer choices, I'll just guess at a few]. Other things/species haven't suffered. More species = more birds. Other cities aren't fundamentally different from London.

That's all I can think of off the top of my head in 10 seconds, so I'll go looking at the answer choices now.

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.
ANSWER: A few things point this out as the answer. First, there's some dangerous strong language "most major cities" "almost entirely". That's not the point of the argument. Even if this assumption weren't true, the argument would hold. Watch: "In most major cities, air-pollution problems are not caused almost entirely by local industry." Even if the industry is 30% of the pollution, why not get rid of it? The argument still holds.

(B) Air-pollution regulations on industry have a significant impact on the quality of the air.
PROBLEM: If the regulation on industry doesn't have a significant impact on air quality, we shouldn't do it, whatever happens with birds.

(C) The air-pollution problems of other major cities are basically similar to those once suffered by London.
PROBLEM: Hey! I hit this one in my guesses. If other cities are wildly different, it wouldn't make sense to institute the same rules.

(D) An increase in the number of bird species in and around a city is desirable.
PROBLEM: This is a great one. Maybe we don't want more pigeon poop on our statues. If this is untrue, we shouldn't institute the rules.

(E) The increased sightings of bird species in and around London reflect an actual increase in the number of species in the area.
PROBLEM: I hit this one, too! If we're only seeing more, rather than actually HAVING more, we shouldn't necessarily institute the rules.

A lot of you were on top of this, but I thought it would help to get the deep treatment. Hope it helps!

-t
GMAT Tutor
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 1902
Re: In the years since the city of London imposed strict air-pollution reg  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Feb 2009, 09:46
5
1
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 Montreal

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
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 30 Apr 2012
Posts: 788
Re: In the years since the city of London imposed strict air-pollution reg  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Oct 2012, 21:11
5
3
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

Retired Moderator
Joined: 18 Jul 2008
Posts: 660
Re: In the years since the city of London imposed strict air-pollution reg  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Feb 2009, 09:44
4
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.
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 30 Apr 2012
Posts: 788
Re: In the years since the city of London imposed strict air-pollution reg  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Oct 2012, 06:14
2
1
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

Intern
Joined: 09 Sep 2009
Posts: 1
Re: In the years since the city of London imposed strict air-pollution reg  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Jul 2012, 13:17
1
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
Intern
Joined: 23 Jan 2012
Posts: 3
Re: In the years since the city of London imposed strict air-pollution reg  [#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
VP
Joined: 02 Jul 2012
Posts: 1094
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 air-pollution reg  [#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..
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 30 Apr 2012
Posts: 788
Re: In the years since the city of London imposed strict air-pollution reg  [#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

Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 8113
Re: Sorry for posting this CR again, I know it has been  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Dec 2019, 04:48
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: Sorry for posting this CR again, I know it has been   [#permalink] 17 Dec 2019, 04:48
Display posts from previous: Sort by