For years, U.S. employers have counted on a steady flow of labor from

This passage is so sneaky-- it *seems* straightforward and I wouldn't be surprised if people finished it well under time with a lot of confidence...only to find that they missed most of the questions.

Everyone's reading process differs, but so you have a sense of where I'm coming from, here's a breakdown of my mental process while reading:

For years, U.S. employers have counted on a steady flow of labor from Mexico willing to accept low-skilled, low paying jobs. (OK, social science passage...it's about labor but what's the main point? Also, this is an issue that is very much in the popular consciousness-- be extremely wary of bringing in outside knowledge) These workers, many of whom leave economically depressed villages in the Mexican interior, are often more than willing to work for wages well below both the U.S. minimum wage and the poverty line. (Mexican workers work in US for <min wage) However, thanks to a dramatic demographic shift currently taking place in Mexico, the seemingly inexhaustible supply of workers migrating from Mexico to the United States might one day greatly diminish if not cease. (Author's point of view! Probable main point of passage...bc of Mex demo shift the current Mex->US flow of migrant workers may shift or stop).

Notes:

I. For years, US employers count on low skill/pay Mex workers
Mex workers <min wage/pov line
Current Mex demo shift MAY ->flow of migrant workers shift/stop

On to P.2:

Predictions of such a drastic decrease in the number of Mexican immigrants, both legal and illegal, are driven by Mexico’s rapidly diminishing population growth. (support for author's main point-- dec. pop growth) As a result of a decades-long family planning campaign, most Mexicans are having far fewer children than was the norm a generation ago. (decades-long campaign->fewer children for most) The campaign, organized around the slogan that “the small family lives better,” saw the Mexican government establish family-planning clinics and offer free contraception. (details of campaign...don't get bogged down in specifics...maybe just jot some key words) For nearly three decades, the government’s message concerning population hasn’t wavered. In fact, the Mexican Senate recently voted to extend public school sex education programs to kindergarten.

Notes:
II. REASON for predicted imm dec is dec in pop growth
decades of fam plan campaign-> fewer kids for most
(govt clinics, contracep, sex ed)

The result of Mexico’s efforts to stem population growth is nothing short of stunning. (results awesome!) In 1968, the average Mexican woman had just fewer than seven children; today, the figure is slightly more than two. (7->2 kids per woman) For two primary reasons, (structure marker, pay attention to upcoming list) Mexico’s new demographics could greatly impact the number of Mexicans seeking work in the U.S. First, smaller families by their nature limit the pool of potential migrants. (1--fewer people overall...duh...other one must be more interesting) Second, the slowing of Mexico’s population growth has fostered hope that Mexico will develop a healthy middle class of people content to make their livelihoods in their home country. (2--hope for domestic Mex middle class)

Notes:
III.Campaign results = wow
7->2 kids/woman
2 reasons: (1) fewer people and (2) hope for domestic Mex mid-class

Though the former of these factors is all but assured, the growth of a healthy middle class is far from a foregone conclusion. (yup, second one is more interesting, as predicted) The critical (red flag word--pay attention) challenge for Mexico is what it does with the next 20 years. Mexico must (red flag word!) invest in education, job training, and infrastructure, as well as a social-security system to protect its aging population. If (structure word...we're dealing w/a conditional) Mexico is willing to step forward and meet this challenge, America may one day wake up to find that, like cheap gasoline, cheap Mexican labor has become a thing of the past.

Notes:
IV. Reason (1)=YES but reason (2)= MAYBE
For (2), in next 20 yrs, Mex MUST invest in ed, training, infra, SS for aging pop
If Mex does-> predicted shift happens

I like social science passages, and there wasn't any of the highly technical language that can sometimes trip me up, so it took me 2:39 to read and take notes on this passage, which means I should spend about 1 min per question to average out to a total of 6 min for both reading and 3 questions (2 min per question). The actual reading process might be faster/slower for you--adjust the time on and approach to your questions accordingly. Also, there are some symbols I used to cut down on writing time (arrows, etc) that I can't convey easily here-- use whatever system and symbols are most efficient for you.


Now onto the questions!

Q1. a NOT question...I'm going to have to examine all of them. What a pain!
(A) I remembered something about pop diminishing in P2, but looking at my notes saw that I had "pop growth" underlined. Typical sneaky Gmat tactic! This might be our answer, but let's keep looking just in case.
(B) 2 is about a third of 7? Pretty close. Cross off.
(C) This is pretty much what P1 says...there may be a shift "one day," but for now the workers are still coming. Cross off.
(D) Where did we see that word "aging"? In my notes for P4! Yup, the pop is aging-- the passage says so....is this the result of declining birth rates? If people are having fewer kids, then the population as a whole must be skewing more toward people who are already alive (older people), so yes this is true but involves some inference. Leave for now.
(E) P.4 notes again-- middle class is a MAYBE. Cross off.

Between (A) and (D), (D) requires a few more steps to reason through, but (A) has a concrete, identifiable error. The answer is (A). If we had gone too quickly and missed that sneaky word "growth" in (A), we might have gotten rid of all the answers. When that happens (and it will!) don't despair--cycle through them again and try to zero in on those little words you may have missed the first time--- getting rid of everything is often a result of rushing through the first time.

Q2. This is an inference question, so keep an eye out for any keywords that will tell us what part(s) of the passage we should focus on. Where did it talk about US employers? According to our notes--the first paragraph.

(A) This choice is a comparison-- make sure both parts are mentioned (and again, be very wary of bringing in outside knowledge--if "most" people know something, GMAC will try to use that info trip you up, so that info is highly suspect in an answer). The passage talks about the Mexican workers' pay, but never explicitly says anything about Americans' pay. What if most of these employers don't hire Americans at all? Eliminate.
(B) "Some" is a vague term that could mean as many as 100% and as few as 1. Do we know that at least one employer violates wage laws? Yes, the US counts on the labor of Mexican immigrants who are "often more than willing" to work for a wage "below the U.S. minimum wage." You could argue, however, that there is a little outside knowledge required here, too-- the fact that the minimum wage is a "wage law." Let's hold onto it for now but keep that flaw in mind.
(C) The passage doesn't specify what industry the workers are employed in. Eliminate.
(D) An argument about employers closing their businesses is never made. Eliminate.
(E) The words "no concern" are quite strong, and therefore you must have strong evidence to support it. The author states that the workers are often paid less-than-minimum wage, but does this mean there is absolutely zero concern on the part of the employers? Not necessarily. Eliminate.

We had a reservation about (B), but it's the only one left after all the others are eliminated, and requires the smallest "jump."

Q3. The phrase "one function" is very open-ended-- we only need ONE function, which may or may not be the primary function, of the final paragraph. Reread our notes for that paragraph.
(A) "certain" is a red-flag word. Is this certain? No, the paragraph lists conditions that must be fulfilled for the number of immigrants to decline. Eliminate.
(B) This info is in the passage, but not in the paragraph we care about (common GMAT trap). Eliminate.
(C) Does this happen in the final paragraph? Sort of...the author says that the decline is a "maybe" not a "definite," and proceeds to state the conditions that must be fulfilled (the implication being that if those conditions are NOT fulfilled, the prediction will not come true). The paragraph is primarily concerned with those conditions, but we're only looking for "one" function. Hold onto it for now.
(D) The passage DOES list infrastructure in which Mexico must invest...IF the prediction is to come true. This answer choice, however, simply says "Mexico must invest"--a very strong statement containing the red-flag word "must." Mexico doesn't *have to* invest in those items-- if it doesn't, then the predicted shift may not happen. Eliminate.
(E) The predicted decrease is contingent on many things happening, and not a certainty. Eliminate.

Really really sneaky passage, but a great exercise in staying sharp about those little words that can make or break an answer choice.