sebycb976 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.
Proposal: 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
What this means:
Say, there are 3 prospective nominees for an office, X, Y and Z.
A prospective nominee, say X must be told that Y and Z are other NOMINEES (not other
prospective nominees) and then X must consent. Only then X becomes a nominee.
Now think about it - if X is told that Y and Z are nominees, that means Y and Z have already consented to be nominees. This means both Y and Z were told about other nominees before consent. But hey, X wasn't a nominee at that time so they couldn't have been told about him.
So how does the first nominee give his consent? He cannot be told about the other nominees since they haven't given their consent yet.
So with multiple nominees, it is just not possible for anyone to become a nominee. If there is to be only one nominee, then it is ok. We tell him he is the only one, he consents and done!
Ques: Which of the following comments concerning the logic of the proposal is accurate?
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.
No. The proposal makes it impossible for the nominees to know who the other nominees are.
B. The proposal would widen the choice available to those choosing among the nominees.
The proposal makes having multiple nominees impossible. It surely wouldn't widen the choice.
C. If there are several prospective nominees, the proposal would deny the last nominee equal treatment with the first.
Several nominees are not possible. Last nominee and first nominee are irrelevant.
D. The proposal would enable a prospective nominee to withdraw from competition with a specific person without making that withdrawal known.
The proposal makes having multiple nominees impossible. If there are more than 1 prospective nominees, the proposal doesn't work. So no question of a second prospective nominee at all.
E. If there is more than one prospective nominee, the proposal would make it impossible for anyone to become a nominee.
Correct.
Answer (E)