When more than one candidatee is named for a party, the prospective candidate must agree to nomination and before giving such agreement must be told who the other parties will be.
Candidate and parties are the same by the way.
ETS' question is presuming something which I think is right but I am not necessarily sure.
Which of the following statements concerning the proposal is accurate if it cannot be known who the actual nominees are until prospective nominees have given their go-ahead to be nominated?
Their assuming none agree ,right, if they say if
E) If there is more than one prospective nominee, the proposal would make it impossible for anyone to become a member.
Clearly, some can agree to be candidates and some prospectives can agree, so there must be some that are candidates.
This question is a killer. I heard that some CRs on the LSAT are purposedly intended for you to miss?
Well, I think a large number of questions has a trick to them - that's a way to make questions more difficult - thus only very few will get it right and the average score will be 540, not 740
And the argument has a fallacy: Candidates are supposed to give their approval only after the names are released and then the quesiton states that the it cannot be known who the actual nominees are until prospective nominees have given their go-ahead to be nominated.
So, there is a contradiction; they can't vote before they know who it is and it is impossible to know who it is; thus they can't vote and thus, they are all going to hell.
--- This was strange, but it was not really difficult. I had to read it twice I have to confess though