It is currently 13 Dec 2017, 16:49

# Decision(s) Day!:

CHAT Rooms | Ross R1 | Kellogg R1 | Darden R1 | Tepper R1

### 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

# CR Steve and JoAnne

Author Message
Director
Joined: 27 May 2008
Posts: 540

Kudos [?]: 371 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

26 Jun 2008, 20:25
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

This question has been discussed earlier, but I'd like to see fresh views.

Steve and JoAnne are both members of a certain club, though they are not speaking to each other. Cecily, the club president, is appointing members to the fundraising committee, but she has resolved that she will not appoint anyone without his or her explicit consent. Steve tells Cecily, 'I will not consent to appointment on that committee unless I know whether JoAnne is to be a member of it.' And JoAnne says, 'I will not consent to be a member of that committee unless I know whether Steve will be appointed to it.' If all three of these people stick by these resolutions, then:

A) Neither of them can be appointed to the committee.

B) The situation described in the scenario cannot arise, because it is inherently incoherent.

C) They must either both be appointed or both be left out.

D) The committee may finally have one of them, both of them, or neither of them as members.

E) Either one of them can be appointed, but not both.

Kudos [?]: 371 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 23 Sep 2007
Posts: 782

Kudos [?]: 254 [0], given: 0

Re: CR Steve and JoAnne [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Jun 2008, 21:05
E or A

Scenario A, neither of them is appointed, because while they bluff, others volunteer for the positions.

Scenario E, one spot is left on the committee, and so one of them ask first. But there is no guarantee that either one of them ask to be on the committee first before other people, which then lead us to scenario A.

Kudos [?]: 254 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 1339

Kudos [?]: 877 [0], given: 10

Re: CR Steve and JoAnne [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Jun 2008, 13:01
durgesh79 wrote:
This question has been discussed earlier, but I'd like to see fresh views.

Steve and JoAnne are both members of a certain club, though they are not speaking to each other. Cecily, the club president, is appointing members to the fundraising committee, but she has resolved that she will not appoint anyone without his or her explicit consent. Steve tells Cecily, 'I will not consent to appointment on that committee unless I know whether JoAnne is to be a member of it.' And JoAnne says, 'I will not consent to be a member of that committee unless I know whether Steve will be appointed to it.' If all three of these people stick by these resolutions, then:

A) Neither of them can be appointed to the committee.
>>>Why not. Cecily can picjk steve and choose some other member .

B) The situation described in the scenario cannot arise, because it is inherently incoherent.
>>>Its possible!

C) They must either both be appointed or both be left out.
>>>Both can be left out but both cannot be in the committe.Remeber they are not in talking terms and dont want to work together.

D) The committee may finally have one of them, both of them, or neither of them as members.
>>>Bothn of them -not possible

E) Either one of them can be appointed, but not both.

Kudos [?]: 877 [0], given: 10

SVP
Joined: 28 Dec 2005
Posts: 1543

Kudos [?]: 189 [0], given: 2

Re: CR Steve and JoAnne [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Jun 2008, 15:21
why not D ?

the president could tell both of the parties, and the parties may decide to both be on the committe, or one may say yes, or both may say no

Kudos [?]: 189 [0], given: 2

Current Student
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 3345

Kudos [?]: 325 [0], given: 2

Location: New York City
Schools: Wharton'11 HBS'12
Re: CR Steve and JoAnne [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Jun 2008, 15:48
i say E..

the dude doesnt want to the girl..and vice versa..so the president will talk to them both..tell them of each others decision..and 1 one of them will become a member..

Kudos [?]: 325 [0], given: 2

VP
Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 1339

Kudos [?]: 877 [0], given: 10

Re: CR Steve and JoAnne [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Jun 2008, 06:30
pmenon wrote:
why not D ?

the president could tell both of the parties, and the parties may decide to both be on the committe, or one may say yes, or both may say no

>>>Both (S and C)can be left out .
But both cannot be in the committe.Remember they are not in talking terms and dont want to work together

Kudos [?]: 877 [0], given: 10

Director
Joined: 27 May 2008
Posts: 540

Kudos [?]: 371 [0], given: 0

Re: CR Steve and JoAnne [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Jun 2008, 07:34
Thanks guys, the OA is E and OE is given below

(E) Because of the resolutions of Steve and JoAnne, neither of them can be appointed before a decision is made about the other one. That rules out making a positive decision to appoint in either case because no such decision could be the FIRST decision. But nothing in the scenario rules out Cecily's first making a negative decision (the decision, say, not to appoint Steve). Then she could inform JoAnne of that fact; JoAnne might then consent to the appointment and thus be appointed. Or, of course, the first negative decision might have been made about JoAnne, resulting in the possible appointment of Steve.

Kudos [?]: 371 [0], given: 0

Re: CR Steve and JoAnne   [#permalink] 28 Jun 2008, 07:34
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# CR Steve and JoAnne

Moderators: GMATNinjaTwo, GMATNinja

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne 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®.