|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Updated on: 02 Dec 2017, 22:22
Originally posted by Chetangupta on 17 Jul 2011, 07:23.
Last edited by Mahmud6 on 02 Dec 2017, 22:22, edited 1 time in total.
Last edited by Mahmud6 on 02 Dec 2017, 22:22, edited 1 time in total.
Formatted
Kudos
Bookmarks
D
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
75%
(hard)
Question Stats:
53% (02:11) correct
47%
(02:21)
wrong
based on 891
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
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?
A. Agree with other citizens of Country J to cut back voluntarily on emigration.
B. Seek a new agreement with the government of Country M to allow any citizen of Country J asylum.
C. Attempt to alter the policies of Country J so that there will no longer be any need to seek asylum.
D. Convince his fellow countrymen who wish to emigrate to Country M to do so as soon as possible.
E. Choose impressive citizens of Country J to immediately apply for asylum in Country M.
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?
A. Agree with other citizens of Country J to cut back voluntarily on emigration.
B. Seek a new agreement with the government of Country M to allow any citizen of Country J asylum.
C. Attempt to alter the policies of Country J so that there will no longer be any need to seek asylum.
D. Convince his fellow countrymen who wish to emigrate to Country M to do so as soon as possible.
E. Choose impressive citizens of Country J to immediately apply for asylum in Country M.
30 Oct 2014, 01:21
Kudos
Bookmarks
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.
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.
General Discussion
17 Jul 2011, 19:57
Kudos
Bookmarks
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
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
