It is currently 21 Oct 2017, 01:46

### 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

Author Message
Manager
Joined: 06 Jun 2005
Posts: 159

Kudos [?]: 159 [0], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

11 Jul 2005, 06:42
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

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

Kudos [?]: 159 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 03 Nov 2004
Posts: 850

Kudos [?]: 57 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

11 Jul 2005, 07:05
I will go with E

Kudos [?]: 57 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 11 Mar 2005
Posts: 717

Kudos [?]: 77 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

11 Jul 2005, 07:55
I am completely off tack on this.

But will not hesitate to pick C.

Only when the nominee consent, then he will be made aware of other choices.

Kudos [?]: 77 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Apr 2005
Posts: 372

Kudos [?]: 30 [0], given: 0

Location: India

### Show Tags

11 Jul 2005, 08:28
E.
The rule is simple, before one is nominated he should know who the other nominees are.
In such a case, how can the first person be nominated, as he wouldn't know how many of the other would be nominated/ consent to their nomination.

HMTG.

Kudos [?]: 30 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 06 Apr 2005
Posts: 349

Kudos [?]: 147 [0], given: 1

Location: USA

### Show Tags

11 Jul 2005, 12:40
The answer has to be E.

My reasoning is the same as that of HMTG.

Kudos [?]: 147 [0], given: 1

Senior Manager
Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 278

Kudos [?]: 79 [0], given: 0

Location: CA, USA

### Show Tags

11 Jul 2005, 20:31
I switched from E to C

Let us consider the following scenario:

At the beginning, we have one nominee: Mr. A. There is no constraint at this point. So he agreed to be nominated.

Then we asked if Mr. B wanted to be nominated. He was told that Mr. A. had been nominated.

Now look at Mr. A, his case did not violate the rule because he made his decision long time ago. Basically, we are not asking him for consent again.

<u>When more than one nominee is to be named for an office, prospective nominees <B>must consent to nomination and before giving such consent must be told who the other nominees will be.</b> </u>

In other words, we trigger the above rule only when asking for nominee's consent. As a result, the first one is always treated differently from the rest.

Kudos [?]: 79 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 235

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

12 Jul 2005, 00:27
would go for E here.

qpoo - this is kind of a DS situation. You did consider one situation perfectly, but what if all the nominees came at the same time to be nominated. Dont think the rule will work at that time.

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 11 Mar 2005
Posts: 717

Kudos [?]: 77 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

13 Jul 2005, 04:25
I think C is totally wrong. Its is infact irrelevent.

Kudos [?]: 77 [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 13 Jul 2005
Posts: 47

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

### Show Tags

14 Jul 2005, 00:30
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?

If you don't know who the nominees are, then it's impossible to to be told who the nominees are, therefore, how would anyone be nominated?

(E) If there is more than one prospective nominee, the proposal would make it impossible for anyone to become a nominee.

Must be told who the other nominees are if more than one nominee.
Question: What if none of the nominees are known?
Result: Unknown nominees = nobody can give consent.

Answer must be E. I hope.......

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

14 Jul 2005, 00:30
Display posts from previous: Sort by