Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
The following proposal to amend the bylaws of an [#permalink]
01 Nov 2005, 04:39
0% (00:00) correct
0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
20. 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.
C is the only one consistent with all the info from the stem.
A) The first one who is proposed for an office, cannot know who else will be nominated
B) The there is nothing stated in the stem, that the amendment will enable more people to be nominated
C) The first one is at disatvantage, because she/he does not know who the opponent will be. Whereas nominee 2 knows number one.
D) Not inferrable
E) Also not inferrable. if there are two candidates, then the third one is aware who is running for that office, and can decide, whether to join or not.