Country M has a new immigration policy allowing those who

I'm not going to offer a full run-down here because this is not a very GMAT-like problem. It has a number of flaws, but I'll just point out one. It says that the quotas would be based on previous levels, but it doesn't make it clear what that means. What if the quotas were actually lower for countries that had already sent a lot of immigrants?

Anyway, D is indeed the best answer. Most of the other answers are wrong because they don't address the specific question we've been asked (this is a big issue in CR). C, for instance, would be lovely, right? This citizen will solve all the political problems of his country and there will be no more need for asylum. We can ignore the unrealistic nature of this (that's one powerful citizen!) and just focus on how it relates the question, which asks us to minimize the effect of the quotas on the emigration attempts of people from J. Reducing people's need to emigrate might stop them from emigrating, but it wouldn't reduce the effect on their emigration attempts. If anything (assuming we ignore the flaw I mentioned earlier), anyone who did attempt to emigrate would face a harsher quota than if there were great waves of people coming over the next 6 months.

I hope that helps. Now back to the OG! If you've exhausted that resource, get a 10th edition OG (less overlap than more recent editions) or the mba.com paper tests.
_________________

D is the winner here.

The argument states that immigration quota will depend upon fixed percentage of total applicants from each country(which is based on the level of previous immigration from that country). Hence if more people emmigrate now, the level of previous immigration from country M will increase, leading to higher fixed percentage.

Crick

Why can't it be C?Question stem says "Country J wanted to minimize the impact of these immigration quotas on the attempts of his fellow countrymen to emigrate to Country M"
In such a scenario to counter or minimize effects of M's policy,stopping the need for migration definitely is the best policy.While asking people to emigrate at the earliest will reduce the impact of quota policy,it does not completely negate it.
If we were to compare between the C and D as to which policy will reduce impact more,it does look like C.
I am definitely having to sweat it out with Inference based questions.Might be am completely getting it wrong.
Experts please comment.

The question stem doesn't clarify the scenario:

will force Country M to institute quotas, granting entry only to a fixed percentage of total applicants from each country, based on the level of previous immigration from that country


Only option D suits the requirement since if % will be lower for previously high number of applications, then the best bet would be to send as many applicants now as possible since the quota will be imposed in 6 months.

if % will be higher for previously high number of applications, then the best bet would still be to send as many applicants now as possible, so that they can set a level for quota and gain more % of seats later.

What if I assume that the large the earlier emigration less the "fixed" percentage given to that particular country.

In that case it is proper to state that A can be the answer.

As A says to cut the emigration.

Please suggest the flaw in my reasoning.

Regards,
Rishav

Posted from my mobile device

Country M has a new immigration policy allowing those who have been refused asylum by other countries to become full-fledged citizens of Country M. So, All people will get asylum who have been refused one in other countries The result will clearly be a large surge in immigration applications, which, after a few years, will force Country M to institute quotas, granting entry only to a fixed percentage of total applicants from each country, based on the level of previous immigration from that country.

If the hypothetical quotas of Country M were to be imposed in 6 months, and a citizen of Country J wanted to minimize the impact of these immigration quotas on the attempts of his fellow countrymen to emigrate to Country M, which of the following would be the most effective action for him to take?

So take away points,
Scenario now: All can apply and get asylum
Scenario after few years: Only fixed quota of people will be allowed asylum in country M based on PREVIOUS immigrant number.
So, to minimize the impact of the quota system on the attempt of his countrymen to get asylum, a citizen of country J should do which of the following?

A. Agree with other citizens of Country J to cut back voluntarily on emigration. Does not help, question stem wants to talk about immigration into M, not cutting back on it - Goes out of window

B. Seek a new agreement with the government of Country M to allow any citizen of Country J asylum. Outside the scope of the argument.

C. Attempt to alter the policies of Country J so that there will no longer be any need to seek asylum. The basic conclusion is that people in J WILL emigrate, altering policies of J is out of the scope of this argument

D. Convince his fellow countrymen who wish to emigrate to Country M to do so as soon as possible. This makes sense, for next 6 months - No quotas - apply one apply all - all get asylum - minimal impact on the citizen of J in emigration

E. Choose impressive citizens of Country J to immediately apply for asylum in Country M. The argument does not talk about any impressive citizen of country J
_________________

Okay let's say more number of people are going in.

After 9 months the country M can allow for lower maybe 2-3% of percentage of people from country Z.

At this point of time, is it not that the quota of the particular country J will be affected because of large number of influx now?
It shall not be an effective and minimizing quota problem right?


Are we assuming more people means more % quota allowed?

If yes then how?

I am not able to understand this point.

Regards,
Rishav

Posted from my mobile device

What kind of quota will be applied is immaterial here, as in out of scope. Argument says, after 6 months, the number of people who will be allowed to enter will be dictated by the number of people who already entered from that country in preceeding 6 months. So to negate this impact, Apply for asylum as early as possible
_________________

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.
_________________