|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 12 Oct 2003
Posts: 274
Location: USA
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
3
[1] , given: 0
|
Steve and JoAnne are both members of a certain club, though [#permalink]
 19 Dec 2003, 05:21
1
This post received
KUDOS
Question Stats:
0% (00:00) correct
 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
Steve and JoAnne are both members of a certain club, though they are not speaking to each other. Cecily, the club president, is appointing members to the fundraising committee, but she has resolved that she will not appoint anyone without his or her explicit consent. Steve tells Cecily, 'I will not consent to appointment on that committee unless I know whether JoAnne is to be a member of it.' And JoAnne says, 'I will not consent to be a member of that committee unless I know whether Steve will be appointed to it.'
If all three of these people stick by these resolutions, then:
A) Neither of them can be appointed to the committee.
B) The situation described in the scenario cannot arise, because it is inherently incoherent.
C) They must either both be appointed or both be left out.
D) The committee may finally have one of them, both of them, or neither of them as members.
E) Either one of them can be appointed, but not both.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 03 Feb 2003
Posts: 1680
Followers: 4
Kudos [?]:
16
[1] , given: 0
|
1
This post received
KUDOS
My intuition whispers that it is E. But I have influenza and may write stupid things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CEO
Joined: 15 Aug 2003
Posts: 3549
Followers: 55
Kudos [?]:
627
[1] , given: 781
|
Re: CR: Steve and JoAnne [#permalink]
19 Dec 2003, 07:14
1
This post received
KUDOS
pitts20042006 wrote: Steve and JoAnne are both members of a certain club, though they are not speaking to each other. Cecily, the club president, is appointing members to the fundraising committee, but she has resolved that she will not appoint anyone without his or her explicit consent. Steve tells Cecily, 'I will not consent to appointment on that committee unless I know whether JoAnne is to be a member of it.' And JoAnne says, 'I will not consent to be a member of that committee unless I know whether Steve will be appointed to it.'
If all three of these people stick by these resolutions, then:
A) Neither of them can be appointed to the committee.
B) The situation described in the scenario cannot arise, because it is inherently incoherent.
C) They must either both be appointed or both be left out.
D) The committee may finally have one of them, both of them, or neither of them as members.
E) Either one of them can be appointed, but not both.
its not clear what both these two want.
do they want to be on the same committee or not?
i doubt if we can pass judgement on what their decisions are, in case they
know who is in and who is out.
D is best.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 28 Oct 2003
Posts: 533
Location: 55405
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
4
[1] , given: 0
|
1
This post received
KUDOS
Isn't D true, tautologically?
It's like saying "It will either rain today, or it will not rain".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 29 Aug 2003
Posts: 327
Location: MI
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[1] , given: 0
|
1
This post received
KUDOS
Agree with D
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1031
Location: Florida
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
5
[1] , given: 0
|
1
This post received
KUDOS
D seems good.
don't have much explanation for it, but it seems like a perfect probability question. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 05 May 2003
Posts: 560
Location: Aus
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
3
[1] , given: 0
|
1
This post received
KUDOS
Is it A  ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 12 Jul 2003
Posts: 34
Location: Boston
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
1
[1] , given: 0
|
1
This post received
KUDOS
I'd be shocked if it wasn't D.
They could still end up on the same committee. Both want to know if the other person will be on it, but it does not mean they will refuse to join it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 19 Aug 2003
Posts: 6
Location: Pittsburgh
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
1
[1] , given: 0
|
cyclical dependancy [#permalink]
19 Dec 2003, 13:31
1
This post received
KUDOS
Answer is clearly A.
President calls Steve to ask his consent. He will not say whether he will join the comittee or not, unless he knows whether Joann will join or not.
President calls Joann, not knowing whether Steve will join or not and gets the same reply.
President can not resolve this cyclical dependency and moves on. Hence, neither steve nor Joann is on the comittee.
|
|
|
|
|
|
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Dec 2003
Posts: 4441
Followers: 10
Kudos [?]:
82
[1] , given: 0
|
1
This post received
KUDOS
My first thought was A
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 28 Oct 2003
Posts: 533
Location: 55405
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
4
[0], given: 0
|
Steve tells Cecily, 'I will not consent to appointment on that committee unless I know whether JoAnne is to be a member of it.'
And JoAnne says, 'I will not consent to be a member of that committee unless I know whether Steve will be appointed to it.'
Cecily first tells JoAnne that she is appointing both of them.
Joanne declines, then Cecily calls Steve, telling him that she is appointing him, and informing him of Joannes decision. Steve accepts or declines.
(Steve only or neither)
Or:
Cecily first tells JoAnne that she is appointing both of them.
Joanne accepts, then Cecily calls Steve, telling him that she is appointing him, and informing him of Joannes decision. Steve accepts or declines.
(Both, or Joanne only)
Or:
Cecily tells both of them that their attitudes are crap, and appoints Carl and Lenny.
(Neither)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 12 Oct 2003
Posts: 274
Location: USA
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
3
[0], given: 0
|
any more tries?
I will put the official answer and explanation once I reach home .. in about 6 hours.
The reason for this question here is it is a questions from one of the established website tests and I got it wrong but don't agree with the 'official' answer myself - though their explanation is in 'much detail'. So wanted to know your thoughts ....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 29 Aug 2003
Posts: 327
Location: MI
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR: Steve and JoAnne [#permalink]
19 Dec 2003, 10:16
pitts20042006 wrote: Steve and JoAnne are both members of a certain club, though they are not speaking to each other. Cecily, the club president, is appointing members to the fundraising committee, but she has resolved that she will not appoint anyone without his or her explicit consent. Steve tells Cecily, 'I will not consent to appointment on that committee unless I know whether JoAnne is to be a member of it.' And JoAnne says, 'I will not consent to be a member of that committee unless I know whether Steve will be appointed to it.'
If all three of these people stick by these resolutions, then:
A) Neither of them can be appointed to the committee.
B) The situation described in the scenario cannot arise, because it is inherently incoherent.
C) They must either both be appointed or both be left out.
D) The committee may finally have one of them, both of them, or neither of them as members.
E) Either one of them can be appointed, but not both.
Another way to look at it is ---
Steve tells Cecily, 'I will not consent to appointment on that committee unless I know whether JoAnne is to be a member of it.'
Rephrase -
I will only agree to become a member if JoAnne becomes a member.
JoAnne says, 'I will not consent to be a member of that committee unless I know whether Steve will be appointed to it.'
Repharse -
I will only consent to be a member if Steve will be appointed to it.
Considering the statements together, we get C as the answer.
Either both of them are on the committee or neither of them.
Any thoughts ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 28 Oct 2003
Posts: 533
Location: 55405
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
4
[0], given: 0
|
I bet your stupid test prep company is going to say "A" is the answer.
Because the key word here is appoint "not appoint anyone without his or her explicit consent."
So she has to get their permission to appoint them, but cannot appoint them until she gets their permission.
This is a stupid question, IMO, and I've never seen anything quite this stupid in the OG...
The LSAT, maybe, but screw the lawyers. Let them work for a living.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 28 Oct 2003
Posts: 533
Location: 55405
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
4
[0], given: 0
|
bnagasub--
Why can't Cecily choose not to nominate JoAnne, and call Steve, telling him that JoAnne will not be appointed?
|
|
|
|
|
|
CEO
Joined: 15 Aug 2003
Posts: 3549
Followers: 55
Kudos [?]:
627
[0], given: 781
|
Re: cyclical dependancy [#permalink]
19 Dec 2003, 14:49
bnagasub wrote: Answer is clearly A.
President calls Steve to ask his consent. He will not say whether he will join the comittee or not, unless he knows whether Joann will join or not.
President calls Joann, not knowing whether Steve will join or not and gets the same reply.
President can not resolve this cyclical dependency and moves on. Hence, neither steve nor Joann is on the comittee.
i will show you one of three scenarios where your "cyclical dependency" wont work.
President and Steve
president : steve , if joann is on the committee , would be interested in being on the committee
steve : NO
president and Joann
president : Joann, steve is not on the committee, would you like to join the committee
Joann : Yes
now second scenario , is both will say NO.
third scenario, both will say yes. ( we dont know what the problem
is between them) ..we cant assume that if one is there, the other wont.
if you'd like, switch joann and steve around, it doesnt really matter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 12 Oct 2003
Posts: 274
Location: USA
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
3
[0], given: 0
|
I answered D.
800score explanation which i don't agree with
(E) Because of the resolutions of Steve and JoAnne, neither of them can be appointed before a decision is made about the other one. That rules out making a positive decision to appoint in either case because no such decision could be the FIRST decision. But nothing in the scenario rules out Cecily's first making a negative decision (the decision, say, not to appoint Steve). Then she could inform JoAnne of that fact; JoAnne might then consent to the appointment and thus be appointed. Or, of course, the first negative decision might have been made about JoAnne, resulting in the possible appointment of Steve.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 12 Oct 2003
Posts: 274
Location: USA
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
3
[0], given: 0
|
I feel it is D. Official ans is E. I don't think other options stand a good chance logically itself.
any comments about the 'official explanation'?
akamai .....? others ...?
|
|
|
|
|
|
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Dec 2003
Posts: 4441
Followers: 10
Kudos [?]:
82
[0], given: 0
|
Pitts, just curious to know if that was a GMAT or LSAT problem?
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 03 Feb 2003
Posts: 1680
Followers: 4
Kudos [?]:
16
[0], given: 0
|
I feel like I saw it somewhere long time ago but cannot remember where exactly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Vercules, Legendaddy, noboru, Marcab, metallicafan, rajeevrks27, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, souvik101990, doe007, MacFauz, PTK, carcass, kissthegmat, Narenn
|
close
