The population in country A consists of residents of county

weaken question

a. You might conclude that such resident would be against immigrants, which would be against the conclusion, but we know nothing about new official's stand on immigration, therefore can't make such conclusion
OUT

b. then, in 1 year and 1 month the policy might change and immigrants
start/not coming to the country.

c. This one supports the conclusion that population will increase, whether it would be immigrants or residents.

d. required younger man... what about females? they might immigrate to country A

e. again, close to a... if immigrants have less "voice" then what's the point of voting, especially when 10% don't show up... infering that new president will choose someone against immigration is incorrect.

Really tough one.

I will go with D. Thats the best out of worst choices.

A and B are out of scope. Why? Lets say its 2005 and in 2006 there are elections. Then when in 2006, we are asking that why the population of immigrants did not increase from 2005 to 2006. There is no role of newly elected president.

E thinks too far from the argument.

Out of C and D, D is stronger reason.

I would pick B for this one.
Same line of reasoning as Deowl.

The question stem asks

Which of the following best explains why in one year the percentage of immigrants of country B to country A did not increase?

It doesnot mention anything about a year after the election or a year form now....... remember the current time is one year before the elections. (In exactly one year country A will face presidential elections)

Hence Option A and B are out as they talk about after the elections.

Option D sounds best

Here the answer is b.

Well, I think it is C... C talks about health care available to only residents and not immigrants, D talk about young ppl involved in war with country C.

Firstly what if Country B has less young ppl and more old ppl, immigrants to Country A would not reduce. So that would take D out....

I thought about C, but the problem with this choice 1) present immigrants ARE RESIDENTS 2) we know nothing about the distribution/breakdown of who recevies healthcare since %-ge of each group is different... therefore we can conclude absolutely nothing about the fact that number of immigrants increased/decreased

hope this helps

This is a very confusing question indeed. What we need to ask ourselves is this: Why, oh why would immigration increase in one year? The answer, after some thought, is that immigrants will vote a president who would appoint an immigration officer that are generous with immigration admissions. Therefore, the reason that immigrant percentage didn't increase in exactly one year, is that the new beneficiary immigrant officer has not been appointed yet.

The other choices, actually do explain a little. For example, war may mean death. However, without explicitely talking about death, we have to remember that even if an immigrant is enrolled in the army, he would still be a citizen, and this does not explain the non increase in immigration, unless a lot of the soldiers are dead.

The other one is similar. Better health will mean longer life and higher percentage for non immigrants. But for this to take effect in the population structure, we would probably need 10 years, instead of one year. Therefore this would not be the best explanation to the fact that immigration did not increase.

Option E roots on the assumption that the immigrants didn't win the election and thus didn't get their favored immigration officer. However if you calculate the votes, it's 3:6 in favor of the immigrants. Therefore this one would not work.

The correct answer here is B. After reading all your posts, I realize that this is a more confusing or 'hard' questions than I originally thought. The questions asks why in one year the percentage of immigrants did not increase. The question stem gives us knowledge that the president is elected by all people in country A, including immigrants from country B. The majority of population of country A is consisted of residents of country B, which assumes that those people would vote for somebody who will make immigration laws easier for immigrants, as all immigrants probably have family members of friends who they'd like to immigrate. Now, taken all of this, all immigrants will vote for the kind of a president who will make immigration easier, therefore, if there is a majority of immigrants in a country, they will elect a president who will represent their interests. This should be clear.

a. we do not know the position of that official to immigration. it is possible that the person would be against immigration or that the person would eliminate all restrictions, making it possible for the residents of country C to immigrate to country A. this does not help explain anything.
b. forget about printing the results in the governmental newsletter. it is some 'extra' information to make some readers things this question is out of scope, while it actually answers the question. if the newly elected president appoints new immigration officials exactly one month after the results of the elections, there new laws or changed laws would not be effective exactly one year from now, if the elections are exactly one year from now. this is the correct answer.
c. wrong. first of all, installing better health support system that only residents of country A can use means that the percentage of native residents of country A would increase, but with time. we do not have information as to how many lives are saved or lost. second of all, we do not know the relationship of new health support system to the new immigration laws. if the president appoints new immigration officials immediately after the elections and the new laws become effective immediately, it would mean that several million residents of country B would immigrate the same day as the new president of country A is elected! if that happens and there is the new health support system that only residents of country A can use, there is a doubt that several million lives would be saved the day of the presidential elections, unless there is a high percentage of deadly injuries among residents of country A and there are either many millions or even billions of country A residents (of which we do not have the information).
d. out of scope. we do not know whether immigrants are male or female. plus, there is a chance that more females would immigrate in case of a war.
e. this gives us the possibility to calculate whether the new president would be pro-country-B-immigration or not, but does not answer our question, unless some more information is provided. we can calculate that the president who will allow more immigration from country B will be elected, but so what? it does not answer our question as to why the number of immigrants did not increase exactly one year from now.