The following proposal to amend the bylaws of an organization was

Question

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.

KarishmaB · Accepted Answer

Proposal: 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

What this means:
Say, there are 3 prospective nominees for an office, X, Y and Z.
A prospective nominee, say X must be told that Y and Z are other NOMINEES (not other  prospective nominees ) and then X must consent. Only then X becomes a nominee.
Now think about it - if X is told that Y and Z are nominees, that means Y and Z have already consented to be nominees. This means both Y and Z were told about other nominees before consent. But hey, X wasn't a nominee at that time so they couldn't have been told about him.
So how does the first nominee give his consent? He cannot be told about the other nominees since they haven't given their consent yet.
So with multiple nominees, it is just not possible for anyone to become a nominee. If there is to be only one nominee, then it is ok. We tell him he is the only one, he consents and done!

Ques: Which of the following comments concerning the logic of the proposal is accurate?

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.
No. The proposal makes it impossible for the nominees to know who the other nominees are.

B. The proposal would widen the choice available to those choosing among the nominees.
The proposal makes having multiple nominees impossible. It surely wouldn't widen the choice.

C. If there are several prospective nominees, the proposal would deny the last nominee equal treatment with the first.
Several nominees are not possible. Last nominee and first nominee are irrelevant.

D. The proposal would enable a prospective nominee to withdraw from competition with a specific person without making that withdrawal known.
The proposal makes having multiple nominees impossible. If there are more than 1 prospective nominees, the proposal doesn't work. So no question of a second prospective nominee at all.

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

Answer (E)

BangOn · Answer

A deadlock situation, where one cannot move without the consent of another.

Suppose X and Y are nominees. 
X must know who is Y before giving consent. 
Similarly Y must know who is X before giving such consent.

Thus no one can give consent because no one knows who is the other nominee.

lexis · Answer

I choose E because if there is more than one prospective nominee, no one will become nominee. It means if we have prospective official candidate, why we need other candidates!!!

For instance, Barrack Obama is prospective official Democratic president candidate. No one, including Hillary, will become official candidate.

Archit143 · Answer

Hi nelz

Wording of the argument is bit complicated but getting to the answer isn't that complicated.

I ll try to explain, if any doubt pls ask...

The argument states that

There is a proposal to amend the laws of an organization, and the drafted law is circulated among the employee.
What is the law?
When more than one nominee is to be named for an office, consent of prospective nominee must be taken and begore 
his consent is sought, the nominee must be informed, who are the other nominees.

Now lets focus on the question:-
A condition is given in the question and we have to find the answer from options if the condition mentioned in the question is accurate.
Now what is that condition?

"if it cannot be known who the actual nominees are until prospective nominees have given their consent to be nominated"

"Which of the following comments concerning the logic of the proposal is accurate"
i.e. As per the law under consideration, the before taking the consent of the nominee he must be informed who are the other prospective nominees. So if we don't know who the actual nominees are, will we able to inform the nominee whose consent is to be taken that who are other nominees participating in the election.

Now you have to find an option to judge the accuracy of the statement explained above

Consider option E

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

Vineetk · Answer

Argument provides below information:

Info1 : A proposal to amend the bylaws was circulated.

Info2 : If there are more than 1 nominee then 2 conditions are to be met:
 a. Prospective nominees must consent for nomination
 b. Before the consent need to be told the names of other nominees.

Question stem asks to pick the answer choice that meets the above demand and the condition provided:
Condition given is: Name of the actual nominees cannot be given until the prospective nominees give their consent.

The condition given above is in contrast to the condition given in the argument. But the condition given in the argument applies only in the case of more than 1 nominees. Thus, to meet the both the condition (given in the argument and in the question stem) there must be only 1 nominee.
E states this but in different words stating that if there are more than 1 nominee then the proposal is impossible to work.

BukrsGmat · Answer

One good question...

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.
  Before nomination must know the other candidates

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?
  this means a candidate will first give its consent to be nominated , then they are known to others

From above two are contradicting one is telling that they will know others then they will file nomination, 
other one tells that first they will file and then will 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.
  not possible as we have an contradictory situation above

B. The proposal would widen the choice available to those choosing among the nominees.
  not possible as we have an contradictory situation above

C. If there are several prospective nominees, the proposal would deny the last nominee equal treatment with the first.
  out of context

D. The proposal would enable a prospective nominee to withdraw from competition with a specific person without making that withdrawal known.
  out of context

E. If there is more than one prospective nominee, the proposal would make it impossible for anyone to become a nominee.
  Correct: there can be only one nominee

OptimusPrepJanielle · Answer

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.

According to the stimulus, the suggested procedural order is awareness of other nominees=>nominee gives consent. But the current rule reverses this: nominee gives consent => awareness of other nominees.

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.
 The proposal wouldn't make it possible for the nominees to be aware of the others because they would have needed to know who the other nominees were prior to becoming nominees themselves. 
B The proposal would widen the choice available to those choosing among the nominees.
 The proposal doesn't affect the choice of nominees. 
C If there are several prospective nominees, the proposal would deny the last nominee equal treatment with the first.
 equal treatment is out of scope 
D The proposal would enable a prospective nominee to withdraw from competition with a specific person without making that withdrawal known.  withdrawal is out of scope

E  If there is more than one prospective nominee, the proposal would make it impossible for anyone to become a nominee.  With more than one nominee it would be impossible, since to give consent one needs to know the other nominees but to know the other nominees one needs to give consent.

CEdward · Answer

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. X

B. The proposal would widen the choice available to those choosing among the nominees. X

C. If there are several prospective nominees, the proposal would deny the last nominee equal treatment with the first. X

D. The proposal would enable a prospective nominee to withdraw from competition with a specific person without making that withdrawal known. X

E. If there is more than one prospective nominee, the proposal would make it impossible for anyone to become a nominee. Correct. The sequence is inform X nominee of other nominees > prospective nominee then consents. So if we break the first part of this chain, then nobody can consent, ergo nobody can be named for office.

MBAB123 · Answer

VeritasKarishma ,  AndrewN  and other members,

I am not sure why we can't have any nominee at all. In the situation explained by Karishma (especially the highlighted portion in the X,Y,Z example). I'm wondering why the first perspective nominee (say Z) cannot give his consent? Of course, he cannot be told about any other nominee but at the time there are no other nominees (X and Y would still be perspectives), so technically we are not doing anything wrong here. Sure Z must be told about other nominees but only if they exist at the time of his consent.

Although, I do kind of get the other side as well. When all the nominees would have been decided - there would literally be only 1 nominee that would have been aware of the all the other nominees before he gave his consent and that 1 nominee would be the last one to give his consent. Essentially, we would be violating the proposal.

Bambi2021 · Answer

This is not straightforward.

If there are no nominees, the first prospective nominee can give his consent and become the first nominee.

The second nominee can give his consent with the knowledge about the first nominee.

The rule only applies to prospective nominees, and of course we can have multiple prospective nominees. They dont have to be informed about each other, but only about the nominees.

However, the subtle clue to the correct answer lies in the language used in the prompt:

"...who the other nominees  will be "

This tells us that all the prospective nominees must have knowledge about all the final nominees before giving his (ok, or her) consent.

If the last sentence would have been: "...who the other nominees  are " then instantly it becomes more ambiguous.

Posted from my mobile device

AndrewN · Answer

Hello,  Brian123 . You  can  have a nominee, just not more than one, per the rules outlined in the passage, which apply solely   hen  more than one  nominee is to be named for an office . The passage provides no insight into the existing bylaws of the organization for  exactly  one nominee being named for an office, so we cannot speculate on the scenario except to say that the passage does not prohibit it. This line of logic leads us straight to (E).

I hope that helps. Thank you for thinking to ask. (I have to run to my next lesson!)

- Andrew

KarishmaB · Answer

Importantly, note the words "will be" at the end of the proposal.
You need to tell the prospective nominee who the other nominees will be (not "are" currently at the time of his consent). Hope it all makes sense now.

lorde123 · Answer

Options B, C, D, and E are not accurate comments concerning the logic of the proposal, given the inconsistency in the proposal's wording.

Kratosgmat · Answer

As per argument, prospective nominees must consent to nomination and before giving such consent must be told who the other nominees will be.  the first prospective nominee must be told who the other nominees are -> which is no one since he is the first and he will not give his consent. Also as per question stem  it cannot be known who the actual nominees are until prospective nominees have given their consent to be nominated . So we will never know who the actual nominees are

Raman109 · Answer

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?

First, the minimum condition is that they must be told who the other nominees are before they consent. So basically, as Karishma pointed out this system will not work if there are more than one nominee, meaning if there are more than one nominee, there is no nominee.

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. - irrelevant.

B. The proposal would widen the choice available to those choosing among the nominees. - irrelevant.

C. If there are several prospective nominees, the proposal would deny the last nominee equal treatment with the first. - irrelevant.

D. The proposal would enable a prospective nominee to withdraw from competition with a specific person without making that withdrawal known. - First, the person can't even be a nominee without knowing the other. Withdrawing is not even in the picture.

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

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot:

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

This post was generated automatically.

The following proposal to amend the bylaws of an organization was

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

The following proposal to amend the bylaws of an organization was

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia