Hi All,
I think I got clarity on this query.
The wording can be improved in this query.
Say the stem is given like this
When more than one nominee is to be named for an office, prospective nominees must consent to nomination and before giving such consent must be told who the other nominees-
at the time of the nomination- will be.
The answer will be ovious D. Because when the first guy is about to consent to nomination, at the time of his nomination, he can be intimated very clearly that there are no other nominees. Then, he consents to his nomination. The second guy knows at the time of his nomination that the first guy is nominated and the second guy may withdraw if he prefers to avoid competition with the other guy ie., the first guy. Thus, D is a perfect choice and all others are ruled out for obvious reasons.
Let us say..the stem is as follows.
When more than one nominee is to be named for an office, prospective nominees must consent to nomination and before giving such consent must be told who the other nominees-
at the [color=blue]closing time of the nomination[/color]- will be (i.e.,
who the final nominees are).
Now, even when the first guy wants to consent, he has to know the names of all the other nominees-which is not possible because all the other nominees will be known only when they give consent. Thus, this is forming a vicious circle and thus E is obvious choice.
Thus, the answer can be either D or E depending on the missing link (colored above). Do correct me if I donot make sense
*********************
(Following is my answer before adding the above piece)
*********************
I am getting it as D.
As per the rules, a prospective nominee looks at the nominees who have given their consent and withdraws because he wants to avoid competition with one nominee.
Somehow, the condition given (if it cannot be known who the actual nominees are until prospective nominees have given their consent ) is in line with argument and is not constraining the logic in anyway.
dj wrote:
The following proposal to amend the bylaws of an organization was circulated to its members for comment.
When more than one nominee is to be named for an office, prospective nominees must consent to nomination and before giving such consent must be told who the other nominees will be.
Which of the following comments concerning the logic of the proposal is accurate if it cannot be known who the actual nominees are until prospective nominees have given their consent to be nominated?
(A) The proposal would make it possible for each of several nominees for an office to be aware of who all of the other nominees are.
(B) The proposal would widen the choice available to those choosing among the nominees.
(C) If there are several prospective nominees, the proposal would deny the last nominee equal treatment with the first.
(D)The proposal would enable a prospective nominee to withdraw from competition with a specific person without making that withdrawal known.
(E) If there is more than one prospective nominee, the proposal would make it impossible for anyone to become a nominee.
I think this is easy ..enjoy!!
_________________
Awaiting response,
Thnx & Rgds,
Chandra