The following proposal to amend the bylaws of an : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR)
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases https://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 21 Feb 2017, 16:16

### 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

SVP
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1538
Followers: 10

Kudos [?]: 754 [0], given: 1

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

### Show Tags

23 Dec 2007, 07:59
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.
If you have any questions
New!
Senior Manager
Joined: 20 Dec 2004
Posts: 255
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 107 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

23 Dec 2007, 08:16
I would go with E.

What is the OA ?

(A) Proposal never talks about disclosing nominations to other than prospective nominees

(B) Irrelevant

(C) Out of scope

(D) THis cannot be done as the prospective nominee is not disclosed about the other nominations until he gives his consent to get nominated.

It took me reading the question couple of times before I could even understand it. Took me roughly 3min and 45sec to answer...
SVP
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1538
Followers: 10

Kudos [?]: 754 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

24 Dec 2007, 01:45
yeah, this is a tough one, but unlike you, I got the wrong answer! lol...well, the OA is E.
Director
Joined: 26 Mar 2006
Posts: 647
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 32 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

24 Dec 2007, 04:34
tarek99 wrote:
yeah, this is a tough one, but unlike you, I got the wrong answer! lol...well, the OA is E.

Woderful CR. May we know the source please !!!
SVP
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1538
Followers: 10

Kudos [?]: 754 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

24 Dec 2007, 05:03
but can you explain how E is correct? you could get to an answer by POE, but what is E really saying? i still couldn't understand it.
Director
Joined: 26 Mar 2006
Posts: 647
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 32 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

24 Dec 2007, 05:40
tarek99 wrote:
but can you explain how E is correct? you could get to an answer by POE, but what is E really saying? i still couldn't understand it.

I think I managed to crack it during my second attempt. Also the fact that we know the OA ('E') could have favoured it.

Let us address the premise :

P1 - when nominee: 2 or more--> introduce a new process
P2 - new process: Prospective nominees must sign a consent form
P3 - Before they sign, they should know the other nominees.

EC - no changes to the above logic of the proposal (no changes to above). And for some unforeseen reasons other nominees are not figured out
----> As we cannot break the proposal's logical approach on dealing with the nominees thus we cannot skip any premise. The proposal demands an recognition of other nominees before a sign, by which one cannot proceed ahead with nomination.

(E) If there is more than one prospective nominee, the proposal would make it impossible for anyone to become a nominee (by signing the form)
24 Dec 2007, 05:40
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
1 The following proposal to amend the bylaws of an 10 01 Aug 2009, 11:02
The following proposal to amend the bylaws of an 8 15 Aug 2008, 03:51
14 The following proposal to amend the bylaws of an 14 04 Jun 2008, 19:10
The following proposal to amend the bylaws of an 3 12 Jul 2007, 10:41
The following proposal to amend the bylaws of an 2 16 Jun 2007, 04:34
Display posts from previous: Sort by