Last visit was: 25 Apr 2024, 09:26 It is currently 25 Apr 2024, 09:26

Close
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
Your Progress

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
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
SORT BY:
Kudos
Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
User avatar
Manager
Manager
Joined: 23 Jan 2011
Posts: 84
Own Kudos [?]: 418 [14]
Given Kudos: 13
Send PM
Most Helpful Reply
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 22 Mar 2011
Posts: 2642
Own Kudos [?]: 7775 [6]
Given Kudos: 55
GMAT 2: 780  Q50  V50
Send PM
General Discussion
User avatar
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 29 Aug 2010
Status:Prep started for the n-th time
Posts: 289
Own Kudos [?]: 538 [4]
Given Kudos: 37
Send PM
Retired Moderator
Joined: 04 Aug 2016
Posts: 391
Own Kudos [?]: 337 [1]
Given Kudos: 144
Location: India
Concentration: Leadership, Strategy
GPA: 4
WE:Engineering (Telecommunications)
Send PM
Re: Country M has a new immigration policy allowing those who [#permalink]
1
Kudos
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.
avatar
Manager
Manager
Joined: 04 Mar 2014
Posts: 121
Own Kudos [?]: 19 [0]
Given Kudos: 178
Location: India
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V38
WE:Information Technology (Consulting)
Send PM
Re: Country M has a new immigration policy allowing those who [#permalink]
Chetangupta wrote:
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.


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. :)
Manager
Manager
Joined: 12 Jul 2017
Posts: 199
Own Kudos [?]: 212 [0]
Given Kudos: 442
Location: India
Schools: ISB '21 (A)
GMAT 1: 570 Q43 V26
GMAT 2: 690 Q50 V32
GPA: 3.8
Send PM
Re: Country M has a new immigration policy allowing those who [#permalink]
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
Manager
Manager
Joined: 17 Oct 2016
Posts: 227
Own Kudos [?]: 426 [0]
Given Kudos: 49
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Healthcare
GPA: 3.05
WE:Pharmaceuticals (Health Care)
Send PM
Re: Country M has a new immigration policy allowing those who [#permalink]
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
Manager
Manager
Joined: 12 Jul 2017
Posts: 199
Own Kudos [?]: 212 [0]
Given Kudos: 442
Location: India
Schools: ISB '21 (A)
GMAT 1: 570 Q43 V26
GMAT 2: 690 Q50 V32
GPA: 3.8
Send PM
Re: Country M has a new immigration policy allowing those who [#permalink]
fitzpratik wrote:
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
Manager
Manager
Joined: 17 Oct 2016
Posts: 227
Own Kudos [?]: 426 [0]
Given Kudos: 49
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Healthcare
GPA: 3.05
WE:Pharmaceuticals (Health Care)
Send PM
Re: Country M has a new immigration policy allowing those who [#permalink]
rish2708 wrote:
fitzpratik wrote:
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
User avatar
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 17220
Own Kudos [?]: 848 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: Country M has a new immigration policy allowing those who [#permalink]
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.
GMAT Club Bot
Re: Country M has a new immigration policy allowing those who [#permalink]
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6920 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts
CR Forum Moderator
832 posts

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne