It is currently 17 Dec 2017, 17:29

### 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
Senior Manager
Joined: 06 Apr 2008
Posts: 428

Kudos [?]: 170 [0], given: 1

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

### Show Tags

15 Aug 2008, 03:51
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 [?]: 170 [0], given: 1

Intern
Joined: 18 Jul 2008
Posts: 3

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

### Show Tags

15 Aug 2008, 19:07
D seems to follow logically from the information stated.

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

Intern
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
Posts: 4

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

### Show Tags

15 Aug 2008, 19:18
E follows logically from the premise stated above.

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

Manager
Joined: 23 Jul 2008
Posts: 193

Kudos [?]: 134 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

15 Aug 2008, 21:28
Please can someone explain this one

Kudos [?]: 134 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 25 Oct 2006
Posts: 633

Kudos [?]: 656 [0], given: 6

### Show Tags

16 Aug 2008, 02:31
IMO D

A: is not possible until consent has been given
B: same as A, nominees can't be disclosed early
C: OOS - treatment is not discussed:
D: In this case a plausible nominee can be replaced with new person so no nominees will be sure before consent
E: Nobody will qualify would be too extreme.

What is the OA?
_________________

If You're Not Living On The Edge, You're Taking Up Too Much Space

Kudos [?]: 656 [0], given: 6

Manager
Joined: 12 May 2006
Posts: 175

Kudos [?]: 73 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

16 Aug 2008, 08:33
IMO C

The first nominee will never know about the other nominations whereas the last one will know about all the nominations before giving his/her consent.

Kudos [?]: 73 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 07 Jan 2008
Posts: 72

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

### Show Tags

08 Nov 2008, 06:06
Can someone explain this.

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

Manager
Joined: 26 Oct 2008
Posts: 116

Kudos [?]: 119 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

08 Nov 2008, 11:37
Definitely E. In my day job at a phone company, I have seen actual processes that "work" something like this.

Here is why it is E: The paragraph says that no one can actually be a nominee until after he or she has CONSENTED to be a nominee. This is stated as follows: "It cannot be known who the actual nominees are until prospective nominees have given their consent to be nominated." The paragraph also says that no one can CONSENT until after he/she is told who the other nominees will be.

This is a perfect circle: You cannot be nominated before you consent. You cannot consent until after you are told who ELSE will be nominated. So you have to wait until other nominees are known before you can consent and become a nominee. The other prospective nominees are in the same position: They can't consent and become nominees until after YOU are known to be a nominee. So you each have to wait for the other, and no one can get nominated.
_________________

Grumpy

Kaplan Canada LSAT/GMAT/GRE teacher and tutor

Kudos [?]: 119 [0], given: 0

SVP
Joined: 17 Jun 2008
Posts: 1530

Kudos [?]: 282 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

10 Nov 2008, 10:06
Another excellent explanation from Grumpy. I chose C, but now I know why E should be correct.

Kudos [?]: 282 [0], given: 0

Re: CR byelaws   [#permalink] 10 Nov 2008, 10:06
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®.