Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Country M has a new immigration policy allowing those who [#permalink]
17 Jul 2011, 06:23
52% (02:22) correct
48% (01:43) wrong based on 27 sessions
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. 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?
Agree with other citizens of Country J to cut back voluntarily on emigration.
Seek a new agreement with the government of Country M to allow any citizen of Country J asylum.
Attempt to alter the policies of Country J so that there will no longer be any need to seek asylum.
Convince his fellow countrymen who wish to emigrate to Country M to do so as soon as possible.
Choose impressive citizens of Country J to immediately apply for asylum in Country M.
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.