While researching a topic, a student has taken the following notes:In the early 1960s, the US had a strict national-origins...
GMAT Expression of Ideas : (Expression) Questions
While researching a topic, a student has taken the following notes:
- In the early 1960s, the US had a strict national-origins quota system for immigrants.
- The number of new immigrants allowed from a country each year was based on how many people from that country lived in the US in 1890.
- This system favored immigrants from northern Europe.
- Almost 70% of slots were reserved for immigrants from Great Britain, Ireland, and Germany.
- The 1965 Hart-Celler Act abolished the national-origins quota system.
The student wants to present the significance of the Hart-Celler Act to an audience unfamiliar with the history of US immigration. Which choice most effectively uses relevant information from the notes to accomplish this goal?
Almost 70% of slots were reserved for immigrants from Great Britain, Ireland, and Germany at the time the Hart-Celler Act was proposed.
Prior to the Hart-Celler Act, new immigration quotas were based on how many people from each country lived in the US in 1890.
The quota system in place in the early 1960s was abolished by the 1965 Hart-Celler Act.
The 1965 Hart-Celler Act abolished the national-origins quota system, which favored immigrants from northern Europe.
Step 1: Decode and Map the Passage
Create Passage Analysis Table
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| In the early 1960s, the US had a strict national-origins quota system for immigrants. |
|
| The number of new immigrants allowed from a country each year was based on how many people from that country lived in the US in 1890. |
|
| This system favored immigrants from northern Europe. |
|
| Almost 70% of slots were reserved for immigrants from Great Britain, Ireland, and Germany. |
|
| The 1965 Hart-Celler Act abolished the national-origins quota system. |
|
Provide Passage Architecture & Core Elements
Main Point: The 1965 Hart-Celler Act abolished a discriminatory national-origins quota system that heavily favored northern European immigrants.
Argument Flow: The notes establish the context of a restrictive immigration system based on 1890 population data, demonstrate how this system created bias toward northern Europe (with 70% of slots going to just three countries), then state that the Hart-Celler Act ended this discriminatory system.
Step 2: Interpret the Question Precisely
What's being asked? Which choice most effectively uses relevant information from the notes to present the significance of the Hart-Celler Act.
What type of answer do we need? A statement that effectively communicates the importance/significance of the Hart-Celler Act to an audience unfamiliar with US immigration history.
Any limiting keywords? "Most effectively" (we need the best choice), "relevant information from the notes" (must use provided information), "to an audience unfamiliar with the history" (must provide sufficient context for understanding).
Step 3: Prethink the Answer
- For an audience unfamiliar with US immigration history, the correct answer needs to:
- State what the Hart-Celler Act actually did (abolished the quota system)
- Provide enough context about the old system so readers understand why this was significant
- Use information directly from the notes provided
- The significance comes from understanding that the Act ended a discriminatory system. So the right answer should combine the action (what the Act did) with enough context about the problematic nature of what it replaced.
Almost 70% of slots were reserved for immigrants from Great Britain, Ireland, and Germany at the time the Hart-Celler Act was proposed.
✗ Incorrect
- States that 70% of slots were reserved for three specific countries when the Act was proposed
- Provides specific context about the old system but fails to explain what the Hart-Celler Act actually did
- An unfamiliar audience would learn about the old system but not understand what changed or why the Act was significant
Prior to the Hart-Celler Act, new immigration quotas were based on how many people from each country lived in the US in 1890.
✗ Incorrect
- Explains the mechanism of how the old quota system worked (based on 1890 population data)
- Provides background context but doesn't state what the Hart-Celler Act accomplished
- Leaves the audience without understanding what actually changed
The quota system in place in the early 1960s was abolished by the 1965 Hart-Celler Act.
✗ Incorrect
- States that the Hart-Celler Act abolished "the quota system" but doesn't characterize what that system was like
- For an unfamiliar audience, this doesn't provide enough context to understand why abolishing "a quota system" was significant
The 1965 Hart-Celler Act abolished the national-origins quota system, which favored immigrants from northern Europe.
✓ Correct
- States exactly what the Hart-Celler Act did (abolished the national-origins quota system)
- Provides the key context needed for significance (the system "favored immigrants from northern Europe")
- Combines action with context, allowing an unfamiliar audience to understand both what happened and why it mattered