The following proposal to amend the bylaws of an : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR)
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 20 Jan 2017, 04:50

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# The following proposal to amend the bylaws of an

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics
Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 13 Mar 2008
Posts: 75
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 50 [0], given: 0

The following proposal to amend the bylaws of an [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Jun 2008, 19:10
7
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

61% (02:46) correct 39% (02:29) wrong based on 88 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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.
If you have any questions
you can ask an expert
New!
Manager
Joined: 27 Feb 2012
Posts: 137
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 49 [2] , given: 22

Re: The following proposal to amend the bylaws of an [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Dec 2012, 00:37
2
KUDOS
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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.

A deadlock situation, where one cannot move without the consent of another.

Suppose X and Y are nominees.
X must know who is Y before giving consent.
Similarly Y must know who is X before giving such consent.

Thus no one can give consent because no one knows who is the other nominee.
_________________

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please +1 KUDO if my post helps. Thank you.

Manager
Joined: 27 Jul 2011
Posts: 181
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 213 [1] , given: 103

Re: The following proposal to amend the bylaws of an [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Dec 2012, 05:02
1
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
One good question...

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.
Before nomination must know the other candidates

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?
this means a candidate will first give its consent to be nominated , then they are known to others

From above two are contradicting one is telling that they will know others then they will file nomination,
other one tells that first they will file and then will 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.
not possible as we have an contradictory situation above

B. The proposal would widen the choice available to those choosing among the nominees.
not possible as we have an contradictory situation above

C. If there are several prospective nominees, the proposal would deny the last nominee equal treatment with the first.
out of context

D. The proposal would enable a prospective nominee to withdraw from competition with a specific person without making that withdrawal known.
out of context

E. If there is more than one prospective nominee, the proposal would make it impossible for anyone to become a nominee.
Correct: there can be only one nominee
_________________

If u can't jump the 700 wall , drill a big hole and cross it .. I can and I WILL DO IT ...need some encouragement and inspirations from U ALL

Manager
Joined: 02 Jun 2008
Posts: 89
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 0

Re: CR - Nominees [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Jun 2008, 19:28
I go with E
SVP
Joined: 04 May 2006
Posts: 1926
Schools: CBS, Kellogg
Followers: 23

Kudos [?]: 1011 [0], given: 1

Re: CR - Nominees [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Jun 2008, 19:40
D for me!
_________________
Manager
Joined: 13 Mar 2008
Posts: 75
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 50 [0], given: 0

Re: CR - Nominees [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Jun 2008, 19:48
Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Jan 2008
Posts: 412
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 217 [0], given: 0

Re: CR - Nominees [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Jun 2008, 20:10
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.

I choose E because if there is more than one prospective nominee, no one will become nominee. It means if we have prospective official candidate, why we need other candidates!!!

For instance, Barrack Obama is prospective official Democratic president candidate. No one, including Hillary, will become official candidate.
Manager
Joined: 13 Mar 2008
Posts: 75
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 50 [0], given: 0

Re: CR - Nominees [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Jun 2008, 20:24
Can you go into a bit more detail on your reasoning? The OA is indeed E, I just don't understand how there cant be another candidate if the first is just a prospective nominee.
Senior Manager
Joined: 14 Mar 2007
Posts: 317
Location: Hungary
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 25 [0], given: 3

Re: CR - Nominees [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Jun 2008, 03:18
This question is tough. I also cannot understand it.
CEO
Joined: 29 Mar 2007
Posts: 2583
Followers: 19

Kudos [?]: 421 [0], given: 0

Re: CR - Nominees [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Jun 2008, 06:30
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.

Took me 3 min. but I arrived at E. I was initially going to choose D, but decided to reread the question 1 more time.

Basically you need to know the names b/f you consent, but you can't know the names unless they have given their consent.

So only 1 person can actually go.
Director
Joined: 03 Aug 2012
Posts: 916
Concentration: General Management, General Management
GMAT 1: 630 Q47 V29
GMAT 2: 680 Q50 V32
GPA: 3.7
WE: Information Technology (Investment Banking)
Followers: 23

Kudos [?]: 692 [0], given: 322

Re: The following proposal to amend the bylaws of an [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Dec 2012, 20:14
Can the GMAT Experts/Instructors explain the OA as many of us are not able to get it correct , moreover OA needs justification
_________________

Rgds,
TGC!
_____________________________________________________________________
I Assisted You => KUDOS Please
_____________________________________________________________________________

Intern
Joined: 15 Dec 2012
Posts: 5
Schools: AGSM '15
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

Re: The following proposal to amend the bylaws of an [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Dec 2012, 20:59
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.

I'll go with E.

The bylaws states in a nutshell: if you want to be named for office, you must be told who you are running against before you give your consent. This only applies to MORE THAN ONE nominee.

The question basically says "You must give your consent first before you know who you are running against." and asks you to find the logical issue with the two statements.

A) Is a direct result of applying the bylaws. There is no issue here.

B) irrelevant

C) Nothing in the paragraph mentions preferential treaetment.

D) irrelevant

E) Correct answer. For one person, the bylaw does not apply. For more than 1 person, both statements apply and there is a logical issue. The issue comes from the fact that both statements cannot apply at once. It is one or the other.
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10534
Followers: 919

Kudos [?]: 203 [0], given: 0

Re: The following proposal to amend the bylaws of an [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Jun 2014, 07:20
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
Manager
Joined: 22 Aug 2014
Posts: 204
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 49

Re: The following proposal to amend the bylaws of an [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Jun 2015, 08:18
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.

I am not able to get this..can anyone explain this????
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10534
Followers: 919

Kudos [?]: 203 [0], given: 0

Re: The following proposal to amend the bylaws of an [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Aug 2016, 04:00
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
Re: The following proposal to amend the bylaws of an   [#permalink] 26 Aug 2016, 04:00
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
1 The following proposal to amend the bylaws of an 10 01 Aug 2009, 11:02
The following proposal to amend the bylaws of an 8 15 Aug 2008, 03:51
The following proposal to amend the bylaws of an 5 23 Dec 2007, 07:59
The following proposal to amend the bylaws of an 3 12 Jul 2007, 10:41
The following proposal to amend the bylaws of an 2 16 Jun 2007, 04:34
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# The following proposal to amend the bylaws of an

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.