GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 24 May 2019, 22:10

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

The Department of Homeland Security has proposed new federal requireme

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

 
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 08 Jun 2006
Posts: 314
Location: Washington DC
The Department of Homeland Security has proposed new federal requireme  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 05 Jan 2019, 02:51
8
54
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  75% (hard)

Question Stats:

56% (01:57) correct 44% (02:17) wrong based on 3236 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

The Department of Homeland Security has proposed new federal requirements for driver’s licenses that would allow them to be used as part of a national identification system. Using licenses for purposes not directly related to operating a motor vehicle is un-American because it would require U.S. citizens to carry the equivalent of “papers.” Such a requirement would allow the government to restrict their movements and activities in the manner of totalitarian regimes. In time, this could make other limits on freedom acceptable.

The author assumes which of the following?


(A) The next presidential election will be dishonest, as has happened in eastern European countries.

(B) The government will soon start curtailing the activities of those it considers “dissidents.”

(C) Blanket restrictions on law-abiding individuals are contrary to the traditions of American culture and law.

(D) The majority of Americans are not willing to give up their right to travel and move about without identification.

(E) Americans should resist all government regulation of their lives.

Originally posted by anindyat on 23 Dec 2006, 19:08.
Last edited by Bunuel on 05 Jan 2019, 02:51, edited 1 time in total.
Renamed the topic and edited the question.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 22 Oct 2006
Posts: 63
Location: India
Re: The Department of Homeland Security has proposed new federal requireme  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Jan 2007, 06:13
1
2
My take is C... byPOE

A. Not a Choice as OUt of scope.
B is ruled out!
C. SO SO...Doesn't appear to be a clearcut assumption
D.Argument doesn't talk abt the right to travel although there is a reference of driver's license. rule it out!
E. Rule it out straight away...as it is generalization against all the govt regs.

As A,B,D,E are not the choices, C is the answer by POE. c appears to be an inference rather than an assumption...
SVP
SVP
User avatar
G
Status: Top MBA Admissions Consultant
Joined: 24 Jul 2011
Posts: 1657
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V48
GRE 1: Q800 V740
Re: The Department of Homeland Security has proposed new federal requireme  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Mar 2013, 21:03
[A]: There is no information at all here about the Presidential election. Incorrect.
[B]: There is no reference to "dissidents", either directly or indirectly in the stimulus. Incorrect.
[C]: If using licenses as identification is un-American and could lead to restriction on movement, then the restrictions are also un-American, and therefore contrary to American culture and law. CORRECT.
[D]: The stimulus says nothing about what the majority of Americans feel. Incorrect.
[E]: This is an over-generalization. If Americans ought to oppose some restriction on their freedom, it does not mean that they should oppose all government regulation of their lives. Incorrect.

C is the right answer.
_________________
GyanOne | Premium MBA and MiM Admissions Consulting

Awesome Work | Honest Advise | Outstanding Results

Reach Out, Lets chat!
Email: info at gyanone dot com | +91 98998 31738 | Skype: gyanone.services
Intern
Intern
User avatar
Status: Attending Duke in May!
Joined: 08 Jan 2013
Posts: 24
Location: United States (NC)
Concentration: Leadership, Strategy
GMAT 1: 640 Q42 V35
Re: The Department of Homeland Security has proposed new federal requireme  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Apr 2013, 21:09
1
walker wrote:
The Department of Homeland Security has proposed new federal requirements for driver’s licenses that would allow them to be used as part of a national identification system. Using licenses for purposes not directly related to operating a motor vehicle is un-American because it would require U.S. citizens to carry the equivalent of “papers.” Such a requirement would allow the government to restrict their movements and activities in the manner of totalitarian regimes. In time, this could make other limits on freedom acceptable.

The author assumes which of the following?

A) The next presidential election will be dishonest, as has happened in eastern European countries.
B) The government will soon start curtailing the activities of those it considers “dissidents.”
C) Blanket restrictions on law-abiding individuals are contrary to the traditions of American culture and law.
D) The majority of Americans are not willing to give up their right to travel and move about without identification.
E) Americans should resist all government regulation of their lives.

My question is how it is close to real GMAT


+1 C

This seems like a real good GMAT question to answer your question. It has a great trap answer (D) and the wording feels right to me.

D can not possibly be the answer because Americans ARE currently required to travel and move about WITH identification. Choice D is a direct contradiction to the stated facts - the passage states that [Using licenses for purposes not directly related to operating a motor vehicle is un-American]. This statement tells you that licenses ARE directly used for operating a motor vehicle. And using common sense, that's what a Driver's License is. It's the law to drive with a Driver's License, you get a ticket if you're driving without one. All modes of traveling aside from hitch-hiking and just straight walking to where you're going require some form of ID. The premise is talking about adding to that restriction, using a Driver License to put more restriction in addition to the travel laws that currently exist.
Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 14 Dec 2012
Posts: 742
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Operations
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V34
GPA: 3.6
GMAT ToolKit User
The Department of Homeland Security has proposed new federal requireme  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Jul 2013, 14:07
mun23 wrote:
The Department of Homeland Security has proposed new federal requirements for driver’s licenses that would allow them to be used as part of a national identification system. Using licenses for purposes not directly related to operating a motor vehicle is un-American because it would require U.S. citizens to carry the equivalent of “papers.” Such a requirement would allow the government to restrict their movements and activities in the manner of totalitarian regimes. In time, this could make other limits on freedom acceptable.

The author assumes which of the following?


(A)The next presidential election will be dishonest, as has happened in eastern European countries.

(B)The government will soon start curtailing the activities of those it considers “dissidents.”

(C)Blanket restrictions on law-abiding individuals are contrary to the traditions of American culture and law.

(D)The majority of Americans are not willing to give up their right to travel and move about without identification.

(E)Americans should resist all government regulation of their lives.



OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:



The conclusion of this argument is that the national identification system (“using licenses for purposes not directly related to operating a motor vehicle”) is un-American. The basis for this claim is that such a system would allow the government to restrict the liberty of its people. The necessary assumption is one that connects restrictions on liberties to the concept of “un-American” policies.

(A) The author never mentions future presidential elections, or the role of the president in such a national identification system. Therefore, the conclusion that the national identification system is un-American does not depend on this assumption.

(B) Whether the government will soon, or will ever, start curtailing the activities of dissidents is irrelevant to this argument: that the national identification system is un-American simply because it restricts the liberties of U.S. citizens. Even if the government does not abuse the power the national identification system provides, the system could still be considered un-American.

(C) CORRECT. This choice connects the concept of "un-American" policies to restrictions on liberties, essentially defining blanket restrictions on citizens as un-American.

(D) Whether Americans are willing to give up their right to travel freely is irrelevant to this argument: that the national identification system is un-American simply because it restricts the liberties of U.S. citizens. Even if Americans were willing to give up their right to move about without identification, the system could still be considered un-American.

(E) While the author may be inclined to agree that Americans should resist the government regulation of their lives that the national identification system represents, this argument does not depend on such an assumption. In fact, the author makes a distinction between the national identification system and “licenses for purposes…directly related to operating a motor vehicle,” so it is possible that the author considers some government regulation reasonable.
_________________
When you want to succeed as bad as you want to breathe ...then you will be successfull....

GIVE VALUE TO OFFICIAL QUESTIONS...



GMAT RCs VOCABULARY LIST: http://gmatclub.com/forum/vocabulary-list-for-gmat-reading-comprehension-155228.html
learn AWA writing techniques while watching video : http://www.gmatprepnow.com/module/gmat-analytical-writing-assessment
: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APt9ITygGss
Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 12 Mar 2015
Posts: 82
Concentration: Leadership, Finance
GPA: 3.9
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: The Department of Homeland Security has proposed new federal requireme  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Feb 2016, 12:34
1
1
souvik101990 wrote:
The Department of Homeland Security has proposed new federal requirements for driver’s licenses that would allow them to be used as part of a national identification system. Using licenses for purposes not directly related to operating a motor vehicle is un-American because it would require U.S. citizens to carry the equivalent of “papers.” Such a requirement would allow the government to restrict their movements and activities in the manner of totalitarian regimes. In time, this could make other limits on freedom acceptable. The author assumes which of the following?

A. The next presidential election will be dishonest, as has happened in eastern European countries.

B. The government will soon start curtailing the activities of those it considers “dissidents.”

C. Blanket restrictions on law-abiding individuals are contrary to the traditions of American culture and law.

D. The majority of Americans are not willing to give up their right to travel and move about without identification.

E. Americans should resist all government regulation of their lives.



Lets understand the premise first and identify the conclusion .

Premise: Using licenses for other purposes apart from driving is un-American.

Conclusion:- Such requirement will restrict movement as well as make other limits on freedom acceptable.

Now the choice that we need to find is the option that strengthens the conclusion or links the premise with the conclusion.

In option D: Even if American give up their right to travel how does it matter? So negating the argument does not shatter the conclusion. If we observe carefully right to travel is not discussed in the passage.

However, option C- It mentions blanket restrictions are contrary to American traditions. Because restrictions are uncommon the government can implement new restrictions.
Negating this option directly shatters the conclusion. if restrictions are not contrary then new restrictions might already be implemented.
Again observe carefully, this option talks something that is given in the premise.
By using POE you can filter out the correct choice. try it.


Kudos if this helped !! :-D
Director
Director
User avatar
G
Joined: 26 Oct 2016
Posts: 633
Location: United States
Concentration: Marketing, International Business
Schools: HBS '19
GMAT 1: 770 Q51 V44
GPA: 4
WE: Education (Education)
Re: The Department of Homeland Security has proposed new federal requireme  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Apr 2017, 20:41
2
Conclusion :- “Using licenses for purposes not directly related to operating a motor vehicle is un-American”.
The rule for assumption is that if the assumption is reversed (also called "flip it"), the conclusion doesn't hold.

The argument basically says that since Americans don't use driving licenses for any purposes other than identification for driving, the usage of such licenses for other identification is "un-american". Ask yourself that what would the author have to assume for this to hold good? From the answer choices, flip all the choices and see whether this argument can be nullified. Lets see-

A says The next presidential election will be dishonest, as has happened in eastern European countries. The flipped version would say "The next presidential election will NOT be dishonest, as has happened in eastern European countries". Since this has no bearing on the argument, we can easily eliminate this one.

The flipped version of B says "The government will NOT soon start curtailing the activities of those it considers "dissidents."" Does this somehow affect the identification is 'un-American' argument? No. So eliminate this one too.

Flipped C : "Blanket restrictions on law-abiding individuals are NOT contrary to the traditions of American culture and law." CORRECT. If Blanket restrictions on law abiding individuals were NOT contrary to the traditions of the American culture and law, the author couldn't have concluded that the usage of driving licenses for identification purposes other than driving is "un-american" and so the argument would NOT hold. So this is the answer!!

Flipped D: The majority of Americans are willing to give up their right to travel and move about without identification. (In order to flip sentences that have a Not, remove the NOT). Even if the majority of Americans are willing to give up their right to travel without identification, it has no bearing whether the usage of driving licenses for identification purposes other than driving is "Un-American". So this CANNOT be the answer!

Flipped E: Americans should NOT resist all government regulation of their lives. No bearing, so eliminate this too

Hence C.
_________________
Thanks & Regards,
Anaira Mitch
Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 14 Sep 2015
Posts: 65
Location: India
GMAT 1: 700 Q45 V40
GPA: 3.41
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: The Department of Homeland Security has proposed new federal requireme  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Apr 2017, 14:25
anindyat wrote:
The Department of Homeland Security has proposed new federal requirements for driver’s licenses that would allow them to be used as part of a national identification system. Using licenses for purposes not directly related to operating a motor vehicle is un-American because it would require U.S. citizens to carry the equivalent of “papers.” Such a requirement would allow the government to restrict their movements and activities in the manner of totalitarian regimes. In time, this could make other limits on freedom acceptable.

The author assumes which of the following?

(A) The next presidential election will be dishonest, as has happened in eastern European countries.
(B) The government will soon start curtailing the activities of those it considers “dissidents.”
(C) Blanket restrictions on law-abiding individuals are contrary to the traditions of American culture and law.
(D) The majority of Americans are not willing to give up their right to travel and move about without identification.
(E) Americans should resist all government regulation of their lives.


IMO the OA:C is correct.

Okay, lets break this down.

Conclusion: Using licenses for purposes not directly related to operating a motor vehicle is un-American.

Argument the author uses to support that conclusion is : the use of licence as anything other than a permit to drive is un-American because it would be equivalent to carrying papers and would allow the government to restrict their movements and activities in the manner of totalitarian regimes.

Now, we need to find out which statement is the assumption that the author is making in order to argue that the use of licence for anything other than driving is un-American.

(A) The next presidential election will be dishonest, as has happened in eastern European countries. -- This one doesn't talk anything about why the use of licence for anything other than driving is un-American. Eliminate.
(B) The government will soon start curtailing the activities of those it considers “dissidents.” -- This is something that could happen if licence is used as national identification. But this still doesn't talk about by its un-American.
(C) Blanket restrictions on law-abiding individuals are contrary to the traditions of American culture and law. -- This one states that its contrary to american culture and law to impose restrictions on law-abiding individuals. If restrictions on law-abiding individuals is against the American culture and law, and if the govt can impose restrictions by using the licence as ID, then this clearly explains why the use of licence as ID is un-American.
(D) The majority of Americans are not willing to give up their right to travel and move about without identification. -- This one also doesn't talk about why is the use of licence as ID un-American.
(E) Americans should resist all government regulation of their lives. -- This is clearly wrong as this is not an assumption at all. This statement implores Americans to resist govt regulation. This does not support the author's argument.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 26 May 2018
Posts: 1
Re: The Department of Homeland Security has proposed new federal requireme  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Sep 2018, 02:34
Hi I am still confused between C and D. Can you please clarify with proper justification?
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
D
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 9238
Location: Pune, India
Re: The Department of Homeland Security has proposed new federal requireme  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Sep 2018, 07:19
1
1
Shivz wrote:
Hi I am still confused between C and D. Can you please clarify with proper justification?



Argument:

- Proposed new requirements for driver’s licenses would allow them to be used as part of a national identification system.
- This is un-American because it would require U.S. citizens to carry the equivalent of “papers.”
- Such a requirement would allow the government to restrict their movements and activities in the manner of totalitarian regimes.
- In time, this could make other limits on freedom acceptable.

Conclusion: Proposed new req are un-American.

What is the assumption?
The argument tells us that the new requirements are un-American. It tells us that the new requirements could limit freedom. The assumption could be that which links limiting freedom to un-American.

(A) The next presidential election will be dishonest, as has happened in eastern European countries.
Irrelevant

(B) The government will soon start curtailing the activities of those it considers “dissidents.”
The problem is that the govt "could" curtail activities. What it is will actually do is beyond our argument. The ability to curtail freedom is the problem itself.

(C) Blanket restrictions on law-abiding individuals are contrary to the traditions of American culture and law.
This is what links restrictions to against American traditions. So should be the answer.

(D) The majority of Americans are not willing to give up their right to travel and move about without identification.
Again, this is irrelevant. What the Americans want or are willing to do is not the point here. The argument does not assume that the citizens will have problems. The argument is just saying that the ability of the govt to control is unacceptable. The citizens may have no problems. Still the restrictions are un-American. For example, a person may not have issues if his/her spouse mentally harasses her/him - but that doesn't make the harassment acceptable.

(E) Americans should resist all government regulation of their lives.
Again, the argument does not assume anything about what people will or ought to do. It talks about what the govt should not do.

Answer (C)
_________________
Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

Learn more about how Veritas Prep can help you achieve a great GMAT score by checking out their GMAT Prep Options >
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 16 Sep 2011
Posts: 91
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: The Department of Homeland Security has proposed new federal requireme  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Sep 2018, 07:42
Hi Karishma,

thanks for the answer but for me answer is easy once you find conclusion. but i got confused between unamerican as conclusion or last line this would make other limits as conclusion.

Agree that unamerican one comes with because which explains why it is unamerican and i too agree on this...I thought this is a intermediate conclusion

THe final conclusion is this could make other limits on freedom acceptable ....any conclusion should pass "Why"test unless prediction/recommendation is there...

Last line passes the test as in why this could make other limits acceptable because new proposal is unamerican and such requirements restrict the movements and activities.... moreover last line is a short of future prediction, "in time "

Need your expert reply

VeritasKarishma wrote:
Shivz wrote:
Hi I am still confused between C and D. Can you please clarify with proper justification?



Argument:

- Proposed new requirements for driver’s licenses would allow them to be used as part of a national identification system.
- This is un-American because it would require U.S. citizens to carry the equivalent of “papers.”
- Such a requirement would allow the government to restrict their movements and activities in the manner of totalitarian regimes.
- In time, this could make other limits on freedom acceptable.

Conclusion: Proposed new req are un-American.

What is the assumption?
The argument tells us that the new requirements are un-American. It tells us that the new requirements could limit freedom. The assumption could be that which links limiting freedom to un-American.

(A) The next presidential election will be dishonest, as has happened in eastern European countries.
Irrelevant

(B) The government will soon start curtailing the activities of those it considers “dissidents.”
The problem is that the govt "could" curtail activities. What it is will actually do is beyond our argument. The ability to curtail freedom is the problem itself.

(C) Blanket restrictions on law-abiding individuals are contrary to the traditions of American culture and law.
This is what links restrictions to against American traditions. So should be the answer.

(D) The majority of Americans are not willing to give up their right to travel and move about without identification.
Again, this is irrelevant. What the Americans want or are willing to do is not the point here. The argument does not assume that the citizens will have problems. The argument is just saying that the ability of the govt to control is unacceptable. The citizens may have no problems. Still the restrictions are un-American. For example, a person may not have issues if his/her spouse mentally harasses her/him - but that doesn't make the harassment acceptable.

(E) Americans should resist all government regulation of their lives.
Again, the argument does not assume anything about what people will or ought to do. It talks about what the govt should not do.

Answer (C)
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
D
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 9238
Location: Pune, India
Re: The Department of Homeland Security has proposed new federal requireme  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Sep 2018, 04:52
1
pk123 wrote:
Hi Karishma,

thanks for the answer but for me answer is easy once you find conclusion. but i got confused between unamerican as conclusion or last line this would make other limits as conclusion.

Agree that unamerican one comes with because which explains why it is unamerican and i too agree on this...I thought this is a intermediate conclusion

THe final conclusion is this could make other limits on freedom acceptable ....any conclusion should pass "Why"test unless prediction/recommendation is there...

Last line passes the test as in why this could make other limits acceptable because new proposal is unamerican and such requirements restrict the movements and activities.... moreover last line is a short of future prediction, "in time "

Need your expert reply

VeritasKarishma wrote:
Shivz wrote:
Hi I am still confused between C and D. Can you please clarify with proper justification?



Argument:

- Proposed new requirements for driver’s licenses would allow them to be used as part of a national identification system.
- This is un-American because it would require U.S. citizens to carry the equivalent of “papers.”
- Such a requirement would allow the government to restrict their movements and activities in the manner of totalitarian regimes.
- In time, this could make other limits on freedom acceptable.

Conclusion: Proposed new req are un-American.

What is the assumption?
The argument tells us that the new requirements are un-American. It tells us that the new requirements could limit freedom. The assumption could be that which links limiting freedom to un-American.

(A) The next presidential election will be dishonest, as has happened in eastern European countries.
Irrelevant

(B) The government will soon start curtailing the activities of those it considers “dissidents.”
The problem is that the govt "could" curtail activities. What it is will actually do is beyond our argument. The ability to curtail freedom is the problem itself.

(C) Blanket restrictions on law-abiding individuals are contrary to the traditions of American culture and law.
This is what links restrictions to against American traditions. So should be the answer.

(D) The majority of Americans are not willing to give up their right to travel and move about without identification.
Again, this is irrelevant. What the Americans want or are willing to do is not the point here. The argument does not assume that the citizens will have problems. The argument is just saying that the ability of the govt to control is unacceptable. The citizens may have no problems. Still the restrictions are un-American. For example, a person may not have issues if his/her spouse mentally harasses her/him - but that doesn't make the harassment acceptable.

(E) Americans should resist all government regulation of their lives.
Again, the argument does not assume anything about what people will or ought to do. It talks about what the govt should not do.

Answer (C)


Note that everything after un-American is an explanation of why it is un-American. Just that it is split into multiple sentences.

This is un-American because
- it would require U.S. citizens to carry the equivalent of “papers.”
- Such a requirement would allow the government to restrict their movements and activities in the manner of totalitarian regimes.
- In time, this could make other limits on freedom acceptable.

Hence the only conclusion is that it is un-American.

Besides no other choice can be an assumption of the argument.
_________________
Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

Learn more about how Veritas Prep can help you achieve a great GMAT score by checking out their GMAT Prep Options >
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 17 Aug 2018
Posts: 61
Re: The Department of Homeland Security has proposed new federal requireme  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Jan 2019, 19:30
C vs D.

Conclusion: Using licenses for purposes not directly related to operating a motor vehicle is un-American

Premise: because it would require U.S citizens to carry the equivalent of “papers".

Prompt does not assume that Americans are not willing to give up travel or move without documents. Rather prompt assumes that require American citizens to carry documents to move is un-American.

Therefore, C is the best answer choice and we can safely eliminate D and all the other answer choices.
_________________
Spread some happiness..Press Kudos! :)
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 20 Dec 2013
Posts: 226
Location: India
Re: The Department of Homeland Security has proposed new federal requireme  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Jan 2019, 21:07
I was confused between C and D. Others are out of scope/context.
Somehow I chose D because it talks about the majority of Americans *NOT* willing to give up their right to move freely without id.

If I negate D : it means "Americans are willing to give up the right to move freely without ID". How would the requirement, which is basically the argument, be "un-American" without this assumption?

C looked a bit vague for the argument.

Posted from my mobile device
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 17 Aug 2018
Posts: 61
Re: The Department of Homeland Security has proposed new federal requireme  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Jan 2019, 21:44
AKG1593 wrote:
I was confused between C and D. Others are out of scope/context.
Somehow I chose D because it talks about the majority of Americans *NOT* willing to give up their right to move freely without id.

If I negate D : it means "Americans are willing to give up the right to move freely without ID". How would the requirement, which is basically the argument, be "un-American" without this assumption?

C looked a bit vague for the argument.

Posted from my mobile device


Willing is not an issue at hand and does not affect the conclusion.

It is about the tradition of the country and non-adherence is deemed as non-American.

Eg. If I say that wearing western cloth is non-indian does not mean that Indians are not willing to wear western clothes.
_________________
Spread some happiness..Press Kudos! :)
GMAT Club Bot
Re: The Department of Homeland Security has proposed new federal requireme   [#permalink] 01 Jan 2019, 21:44
Display posts from previous: Sort by

The Department of Homeland Security has proposed new federal requireme

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


Copyright

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

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

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.