It is currently 17 Nov 2017, 18:12

### 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
SVP
Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 1699

Kudos [?]: 480 [0], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

01 Nov 2005, 05:39
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

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

### HideShow timer Statistics

20. 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.
_________________

hey ya......

Kudos [?]: 480 [0], given: 0

SVP
Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 1699

Kudos [?]: 480 [0], given: 0

Location: Dhaka

### Show Tags

02 Nov 2005, 17:46
lets see how this one goes....
_________________

hey ya......

Kudos [?]: 480 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 04 Sep 2005
Posts: 139

Kudos [?]: 28 [0], given: 0

Location: Fringes of the Boreal, Canada

### Show Tags

02 Nov 2005, 18:17
In B) the nominees do not know who they are going up against, they may be more willing to provide consent to their own nomination thus widening the selection. Assumes too much.

A) looks like the best since nominees will eventually know who they are going up against.

Kudos [?]: 28 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 14 Apr 2003
Posts: 84

Kudos [?]: 27 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

03 Nov 2005, 00:24
E.

If there are more than one nominee, we cant progress. Go to nominee number one and tell other nominees before getting his consent. No one has yet been nominated.

Kudos [?]: 27 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
Posts: 246

Kudos [?]: 90 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

03 Nov 2005, 04:19
C is the only one consistent with all the info from the stem.

A) The first one who is proposed for an office, cannot know who else will be nominated
B) The there is nothing stated in the stem, that the amendment will enable more people to be nominated
C) The first one is at disatvantage, because she/he does not know who the opponent will be. Whereas nominee 2 knows number one.
D) Not inferrable
E) Also not inferrable. if there are two candidates, then the third one is aware who is running for that office, and can decide, whether to join or not.

Kudos [?]: 90 [0], given: 0

SVP
Joined: 16 Oct 2003
Posts: 1798

Kudos [?]: 173 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

03 Nov 2005, 10:45
I think it is E, not sure though.

Kudos [?]: 173 [0], given: 0

SVP
Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 1699

Kudos [?]: 480 [0], given: 0

Location: Dhaka

### Show Tags

07 Nov 2005, 07:25
OA is E.
_________________

hey ya......

Kudos [?]: 480 [0], given: 0

07 Nov 2005, 07:25
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# The following proposal to amend the bylaws of an

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®.