Score Plus

rchuck21 wrote:
1. 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.

Solution:

The key to solving these questions is to find the conclusion and weed out assumptions that are contrary or not relevant to the conclusion. The conclusion here is: "Similar air-pollution rules should be imposed in other major cities."

Did you notice the conviction in the author's stance here on air-pollution ? The usage of word " Should be" is pretty strong. Also, the author has already taken air-pollution to be a necessary evil. If you personalize the argument, you would notice that all options except (a) would strengthen the author's belief that air-pollution controls should be stringent. The author is least interested in the statistics of air pollution.Also , the usage of the word "almost entirely" in option (a) is too harsh and extreme. Nowhere in the stimuli does the author mentions about the causes of air pollution. The crux of the argument is: "Air pollution is evil and should be curbed rigorously. Period."

Hence option (a) is the best answer which is irrelevant to the argument.


hey rahul,

Thanks for the answering queries.But dont you feel that opton D is totally out of scope as in how can we comment on desirabilty of presence of number of bird species in and around London?
option A I feel to some extent supports the conclusion.
Plzz correct me if I am wrong, I guess I might have missed some important data.

Look at the statement again. The conclusion is about imposition of stricter air pollution control rules in other major cities. And how does the author validate the conclusion? By giving an example that strict air pollution controls in London have yielded positive results as the number of bird species in and around the city has increased dramatically - this forms the premise. So certainly there is an assumption that stricter regulations on air pollution will result in cleaner air thereby inducing an atmosphere for birds to breed. By mentioning the cause of air pollution regulation to the effect of increase in birds, the author feels that the proliferation of birds is certainly desirable.

Its only option (a) which seems to have no bearing on the conclusion. I think its still option (a) which is a better option than (d).
Do let me know what do you think abt the analysis.