It is currently 19 Nov 2017, 15:05

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
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 30 Aug 2005
Posts: 183

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 0

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

Show Tags

02 Dec 2005, 05:35
3
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

73% (01:00) correct 27% (02:43) wrong based on 41 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 [?]: 15 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 658

Kudos [?]: 16 [0], given: 0

Location: London

Show Tags

02 Dec 2005, 07:55
I think it is D.

the first person, would never know who his opponents would be. The second person, can withdraw if he finds the first one too powerful.

I would have gone with C if it said that the last person was given better opportunity than the first person. Because the last person knows everybody in front of him.
But the choice says that the last person is denied the benefits the first one enjoys.

Kudos [?]: 16 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 22 Aug 2005
Posts: 1111

Kudos [?]: 124 [0], given: 0

Location: CA

Show Tags

02 Dec 2005, 10:49
E.

_________________

Whether you think you can or think you can't. You're right! - Henry Ford (1863 - 1947)

Kudos [?]: 124 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 30 Aug 2005
Posts: 183

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

03 Dec 2005, 14:24
Why not C?

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 23 Apr 2005
Posts: 206

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

04 Dec 2005, 00:50
E as well.

Prospective nominees must consent to nomination and before giving such consent must be told who the other nominees will be: a circular reasoning.
Assuming that: A and B are nominees. A must know who is B before giving consent. B must know is A before giving such consent. --> No one can give such consent because no one knows who is the other.

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 11 May 2004
Posts: 453

Kudos [?]: 55 [0], given: 0

Location: New York

Show Tags

04 Dec 2005, 10:07
another E.

If everyone is waiting to see who else is nominated then we have a problem.

Kudos [?]: 55 [0], given: 0

SVP
Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 1699

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

Location: Dhaka

Show Tags

04 Dec 2005, 10:56
yup got E as well.
_________________

hey ya......

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

Intern
Joined: 03 Jun 2005
Posts: 26

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

Re: CR: proposal to ammend bylaws [#permalink]

Show Tags

04 Dec 2005, 13:58
[quote="rianah100"]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.[/quote]
========
T0 consent ---> should be told
Cannot be told ---> until consents.

E

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

Manager
Joined: 30 Aug 2005
Posts: 183

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

06 Dec 2005, 05:38
OA is E

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 0

Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10132

Kudos [?]: 270 [0], given: 0

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

Show Tags

20 Jul 2016, 11:11
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Kudos [?]: 270 [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 26 Jul 2016
Posts: 24

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 42

Concentration: Finance, Strategy
WE: Analyst (Energy and Utilities)
Re: The following proposal to amend the bylaws of an [#permalink]

Show Tags

14 Oct 2016, 07:03
rianah100 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 says the prospective nominee should know about Y and then do X.
but existing scenario says for the prospective nominee should do X and then only he can know about Y.

In that case, assuming the existing condition to be valid, the proposal would make it impossible for anyone to become a nominee if there are more than one nominee.

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 42

Re: The following proposal to amend the bylaws of an   [#permalink] 14 Oct 2016, 07:03
Display posts from previous: Sort by