NEW HERE? LEARN MORE
closeclose
Last visit was: 23 Apr 2024, 16:30 It is currently 23 Apr 2024, 16:30
Decision Tracker
My Rewards
New posts
New comers' posts

Close
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
Your Progress

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
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel

The following proposal to amend the bylaws of an organization was

SORT BY:
Date
Kudos
Tags:
Find Similar Topics 
Show Tags
Hide Tags
User avatar
sebycb976
Manager
Manager
Joined: 13 Mar 2008
Posts: 59
Own Kudos [?]: 332 [248]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
The following proposal to amend the bylaws of an organization was [#permalink] New post   Updated on: 29 Feb 2024, 02:08
12
Kudos
236
Bookmarks
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

38% (02:17) correct 62% (02:42) wrong based on 3191 sessions
Hide Show 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.­
ShowHide Answer
Official Answer
E

Originally posted by sebycb976 on 04 Jun 2008, 20:10.
Last edited by Bunuel on 29 Feb 2024, 02:08, edited 3 times in total.
Most Helpful Reply
User avatar
L
KarishmaB
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 14816
Own Kudos [?]: 64882 [54]
Given Kudos: 426
Location: Pune, India
Send PM
The following proposal to amend the bylaws of an organization was [#permalink] New post   20 Jan 2019, 23:50
37
Kudos
17
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
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)­
User avatar
BangOn
Manager
Manager
Joined: 27 Feb 2012
Posts: 97
Own Kudos [?]: 170 [15]
Given Kudos: 22
Send PM
Re: The following proposal to amend the bylaws of an organization was [#permalink] New post   16 Dec 2012, 01:37
8
Kudos
7
Bookmarks
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.
General Discussion
User avatar
lexis
Manager
Manager
Joined: 07 Jan 2008
Posts: 218
Own Kudos [?]: 1927 [2]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: The following proposal to amend the bylaws of an organization was [#permalink] New post   04 Jun 2008, 21:10
2
Kudos
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.
User avatar
Archit143
Director
Director
Joined: 21 Sep 2012
Status:Final Lap Up!!!
Affiliations: NYK Line
Posts: 734
Own Kudos [?]: 1857 [3]
Given Kudos: 70
Location: India
Schools: Cox '16 (S) AGSM '16 Tulane '16 (S) McCombs '16 (S) Neeley '16 (S) Jones '16 (S) ISB '15 (D) MIT-LGO '16 (M)
GMAT 1: 410 Q35 V11
GMAT 2: 530 Q44 V20
GMAT 3: 630 Q45 V31
GPA: 3.84
WE:Engineering (Transportation)
Send PM
Re: The following proposal to amend the bylaws of an organization was [#permalink] New post   15 Nov 2012, 00:06
1
Kudos
2
Bookmarks
Hi nelz

Wording of the argument is bit complicated but getting to the answer isn't that complicated.

I ll try to explain, if any doubt pls ask...

The argument states that

There is a proposal to amend the laws of an organization, and the drafted law is circulated among the employee.
What is the law?
When more than one nominee is to be named for an office, consent of prospective nominee must be taken and begore
his consent is sought, the nominee must be informed, who are the other nominees.

Now lets focus on the question:-
A condition is given in the question and we have to find the answer from options if the condition mentioned in the question is accurate.
Now what is that condition?

"if it cannot be known who the actual nominees are until prospective nominees have given their consent to be nominated"

"Which of the following comments concerning the logic of the proposal is accurate"
i.e. As per the law under consideration, the before taking the consent of the nominee he must be informed who are the other prospective nominees. So if we don't know who the actual nominees are, will we able to inform the nominee whose consent is to be taken that who are other nominees participating in the election.

Now you have to find an option to judge the accuracy of the statement explained above

Consider option E

E If there is more than one prospective nominee, the proposal would make it impossible for anyone to become a nominee.
User avatar
Vineetk
AGSM Thread Master
Joined: 19 Jul 2012
Posts: 115
Own Kudos [?]: 713 [6]
Given Kudos: 30
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, International Business
Schools: Tuck '16 NUS Ivey Goizueta '14 Kelley '14 UBC AGSM
GMAT 1: 630 Q49 V28
GPA: 3.3
Send PM
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: The following proposal to amend the bylaws of an organization was [#permalink] New post   15 Nov 2012, 01:31
6
Kudos
Argument provides below information:

Info1 : A proposal to amend the bylaws was circulated.

Info2 : If there are more than 1 nominee then 2 conditions are to be met:
a. Prospective nominees must consent for nomination
b. Before the consent need to be told the names of other nominees.

Question stem asks to pick the answer choice that meets the above demand and the condition provided:
Condition given is: Name of the actual nominees cannot be given until the prospective nominees give their consent.

The condition given above is in contrast to the condition given in the argument. But the condition given in the argument applies only in the case of more than 1 nominees. Thus, to meet the both the condition (given in the argument and in the question stem) there must be only 1 nominee.
E states this but in different words stating that if there are more than 1 nominee then the proposal is impossible to work.
User avatar
BukrsGmat
Manager
Manager
Joined: 27 Jul 2011
Posts: 119
Own Kudos [?]: 1033 [3]
Given Kudos: 103
Send PM
Re: The following proposal to amend the bylaws of an organization was [#permalink] New post   07 Dec 2012, 06:02
2
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
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
avatar
B
OptimusPrepJanielle
SVP
SVP
Joined: 06 Nov 2014
Posts: 1798
Own Kudos [?]: 1367 [3]
Given Kudos: 23
Send PM
Re: The following proposal to amend the bylaws of an organization was [#permalink] New post   01 Jul 2015, 04:39
1
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
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.

According to the stimulus, the suggested procedural order is awareness of other nominees=>nominee gives consent. But the current rule reverses this: nominee gives consent => awareness of other nominees.

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.
The proposal wouldn't make it possible for the nominees to be aware of the others because they would have needed to know who the other nominees were prior to becoming nominees themselves.
B The proposal would widen the choice available to those choosing among the nominees.
The proposal doesn't affect the choice of nominees.
C If there are several prospective nominees, the proposal would deny the last nominee equal treatment with the first.
equal treatment is out of scope
D The proposal would enable a prospective nominee to withdraw from competition with a specific person without making that withdrawal known. withdrawal is out of scope

E If there is more than one prospective nominee, the proposal would make it impossible for anyone to become a nominee. With more than one nominee it would be impossible, since to give consent one needs to know the other nominees but to know the other nominees one needs to give consent.
User avatar
G
CEdward
VP
VP
Joined: 11 Aug 2020
Posts: 1263
Own Kudos [?]: 201 [0]
Given Kudos: 332
Send PM
Re: The following proposal to amend the bylaws of an organization was [#permalink] New post   11 Feb 2021, 00:18
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. X

B. The proposal would widen the choice available to those choosing among the nominees. X

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

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

E. If there is more than one prospective nominee, the proposal would make it impossible for anyone to become a nominee. Correct. The sequence is inform X nominee of other nominees > prospective nominee then consents. So if we break the first part of this chain, then nobody can consent, ergo nobody can be named for office.
avatar
B
vishvendra97
Intern
Intern
Joined: 20 Oct 2020
Posts: 7
Own Kudos [?]: 0 [0]
Given Kudos: 4
Send PM
Re: The following proposal to amend the bylaws of an organization was [#permalink] New post   23 Feb 2021, 03:24
GMATNinja please throw some lights on this one
User avatar
D
MBAB123
Director
Director
Joined: 05 Jul 2020
Posts: 590
Own Kudos [?]: 301 [2]
Given Kudos: 154
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V38
WE:Accounting (Accounting)
Send PM
Reviews Badge
The following proposal to amend the bylaws of an organization was [#permalink] New post   18 May 2021, 19:58
2
Kudos
VeritasKarishma wrote:
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)



VeritasKarishma, AndrewN and other members,

I am not sure why we can't have any nominee at all. In the situation explained by Karishma (especially the highlighted portion in the X,Y,Z example). I'm wondering why the first perspective nominee (say Z) cannot give his consent? Of course, he cannot be told about any other nominee but at the time there are no other nominees (X and Y would still be perspectives), so technically we are not doing anything wrong here. Sure Z must be told about other nominees but only if they exist at the time of his consent.

Although, I do kind of get the other side as well. When all the nominees would have been decided - there would literally be only 1 nominee that would have been aware of the all the other nominees before he gave his consent and that 1 nominee would be the last one to give his consent. Essentially, we would be violating the proposal.­
User avatar
S
Bambi2021
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 13 Mar 2021
Posts: 338
Own Kudos [?]: 101 [0]
Given Kudos: 227
Send PM
Re: The following proposal to amend the bylaws of an organization was [#permalink] New post   19 May 2021, 05:39
This is not straightforward.

If there are no nominees, the first prospective nominee can give his consent and become the first nominee.

The second nominee can give his consent with the knowledge about the first nominee.

The rule only applies to prospective nominees, and of course we can have multiple prospective nominees. They dont have to be informed about each other, but only about the nominees.

However, the subtle clue to the correct answer lies in the language used in the prompt:

"...who the other nominees will be"

This tells us that all the prospective nominees must have knowledge about all the final nominees before giving his (ok, or her) consent.

If the last sentence would have been: "...who the other nominees are" then instantly it becomes more ambiguous.

Posted from my mobile device
avatar
L
AndrewN
Volunteer Expert
Joined: 16 May 2019
Posts: 3512
Own Kudos [?]: 6856 [2]
Given Kudos: 500
Re: The following proposal to amend the bylaws of an organization was [#permalink] New post   19 May 2021, 11:56
2
Kudos
Expert Reply
Brian123 wrote:
VeritasKarishma, AndrewN and other members,

I am not sure why we can't have any nominee at all. In the situation explained by Karishma (especially the highlighted portion in the X,Y,Z example). I'm wondering why the first perspective nominee (say Z) cannot give his consent? Of course, he cannot be told about any other nominee but at the time there are no other nominees (X and Y would still be perspectives), so technically we are not doing anything wrong here. Sure Z must be told about other nominees but only if they exist at the time of his consent.

Although, I do kind of get the other side as well. When all the nominees would have been decided - there would literally be only 1 nominee that would have been aware of the all the other nominees before he gave his consent and that 1 nominee would be the last one to give his consent. Essentially, we would be violating the proposal.

Hello, Brian123. You can have a nominee, just not more than one, per the rules outlined in the passage, which apply solely [w]hen more than one nominee is to be named for an office. The passage provides no insight into the existing bylaws of the organization for exactly one nominee being named for an office, so we cannot speculate on the scenario except to say that the passage does not prohibit it. This line of logic leads us straight to (E).

I hope that helps. Thank you for thinking to ask. (I have to run to my next lesson!)

- Andrew
User avatar
L
KarishmaB
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 14816
Own Kudos [?]: 64882 [1]
Given Kudos: 426
Location: Pune, India
Send PM
The following proposal to amend the bylaws of an organization was [#permalink] New post   20 May 2021, 00:09
1
Kudos
Expert Reply
Brian123 wrote:
VeritasKarishma wrote:
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)



VeritasKarishma, AndrewN and other members,

I am not sure why we can't have any nominee at all. In the situation explained by Karishma (especially the highlighted portion in the X,Y,Z example). I'm wondering why the first perspective nominee (say Z) cannot give his consent? Of course, he cannot be told about any other nominee but at the time there are no other nominees (X and Y would still be perspectives), so technically we are not doing anything wrong here. Sure Z must be told about other nominees but only if they exist at the time of his consent.

Although, I do kind of get the other side as well. When all the nominees would have been decided - there would literally be only 1 nominee that would have been aware of the all the other nominees before he gave his consent and that 1 nominee would be the last one to give his consent. Essentially, we would be violating the proposal.


Importantly, note the words "will be" at the end of the proposal.
You need to tell the prospective nominee who the other nominees will be (not "are" currently at the time of his consent). Hope it all makes sense now.­
User avatar
B
nsomayaj
Intern
Intern
Joined: 05 Oct 2022
Posts: 7
Own Kudos [?]: 3 [0]
Given Kudos: 117
Send PM
Re: The following proposal to amend the bylaws of an organization was [#permalink] New post   22 Nov 2022, 11:28
I think C and E are contenders.

C says it is possible but just that it will be unfair. But theoretically, it is not possible at all. So E wins.
User avatar
lorde123
Intern
Intern
Joined: 04 Apr 2023
Posts: 4
Own Kudos [?]: 0 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Location: United Kingdom
Send PM
Re: The following proposal to amend the bylaws of an organization was [#permalink] New post   04 Apr 2023, 02:16
Options B, C, D, and E are not accurate comments concerning the logic of the proposal, given the inconsistency in the proposal's wording.
User avatar
G
Kratosgmat
Manager
Manager
Joined: 26 Sep 2022
Posts: 86
Own Kudos [?]: 2 [0]
Given Kudos: 40
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Other
GRE 1: Q164 V158
Send PM
Re: The following proposal to amend the bylaws of an organization was [#permalink] New post   10 Jul 2023, 07:20
As per argument,prospective nominees must consent to nomination and before giving such consent must be told who the other nominees will be. the first prospective nominee must be told who the other nominees are -> which is no one since he is the first and he will not give his consent. Also as per question stem it cannot be known who the actual nominees are until prospective nominees have given their consent to be nominated. So we will never know who the actual nominees are
GMAT Club Bot
gmatclubot
Re: The following proposal to amend the bylaws of an organization was [#permalink]
10 Jul 2023, 07:20
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6917 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts
mysterymanrog
CR Forum Moderator
832 posts

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne
Main navigation
GMAT Resources
Partners
MBA Resources
www.gmac.com|www.mba.com | | GMAT Club Rules | Terms and Conditions