1000CR Test 3, Q 20

Expert replies

tallynik: Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts; Posts: 48; Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 4:49 pm

by tallynik » Thu Oct 30, 2008 10:06 pm

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.

OA E

I am not sure if above is the right answer. I marked D.
Please help understand.

Thanks For Your Help

Source: Beat The GMAT — Critical Reasoning | Thu Oct 30, 2008 10:06 pm

logitech: Legendary Member; Posts: 2134; Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 11:26 pmFollowed by: 25 members; Thanked: 237 times; GMAT Score:730

by logitech » Thu Oct 30, 2008 10:20 pm

I kept staring at this question and asked myself whether it was written in English or not..I will pass this one!

LGTCH
---------------------
"DON'T LET ANYONE STEAL YOUR DREAM!"

nervesofsteel: Legendary Member; Posts: 594; Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 11:51 pm; Thanked: 12 times

by nervesofsteel » Thu Oct 30, 2008 10:44 pm

The answer should be E

Condition for giving a consent is that the person should know who all are competing.

as per the last condition , if it is not possible to know nominees in advance.. Then No one can nominate as second condition leads to contradiction with first condition.

Hope it helps.

raunekk: Legendary Member; Posts: 1159; Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2008 10:35 pm; Thanked: 56 times

by raunekk » Thu Oct 30, 2008 10:51 pm

i came across this question few months back and i must say its an absolute beauty...

later i came across a impeccable explanation for the same, found from esnips...

explanation:
Suppose that there are only two Prospective nominees A & B.

We approach A to get his consent to become a nominee. Now according to the proposal before taking the consent from A, he must be told that the other nominee is B. But B has not given his consent yet. So to get consent from A we need to take consent from B.

Now we approach B. Here again before taking B's consent we must tell him that A is the other nominee. But we have not taken consent from A yet.

This scenario will lead us where we can't get consent from any prospective nominee and therefore if there is more than one prospective nominee, the proposal would make it impossible for anyone to become a nominee.

Hence E.

i hope this helps..

aj5105: Legendary Member; Posts: 1169; Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2008 2:34 amFollowed by: 1 member; Thanked: 25 times

by aj5105 » Sat Nov 01, 2008 12:06 am

nice 1 - thanks.

stop@800: Legendary Member; Posts: 871; Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 7:48 am; Thanked: 48 times

by stop@800 » Sat Nov 01, 2008 10:47 am

A deadlock situation

raunekk wrote:i came across this question few months back and i must say its an absolute beauty...

later i came across a impeccable explanation for the same, found from esnips...

explanation:
Suppose that there are only two Prospective nominees A & B.

We approach A to get his consent to become a nominee. Now according to the proposal before taking the consent from A, he must be told that the other nominee is B. But B has not given his consent yet. So to get consent from A we need to take consent from B.

Now we approach B. Here again before taking B's consent we must tell him that A is the other nominee. But we have not taken consent from A yet.

This scenario will lead us where we can't get consent from any prospective nominee and therefore if there is more than one prospective nominee, the proposal would make it impossible for anyone to become a nominee.

Hence E.

i hope this helps..

www.interrogationpoint.com

Sharma_Gaurav: Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts; Posts: 160; Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 1:09 pmFollowed by: 1 member; Thanked: 1 times

by Sharma_Gaurav » Wed Jan 04, 2012 12:07 am

does anyone know what level question this one would be on an actual gmat exam ?
I guess it is 700 + level, and i would have guessed it, depending on time .
But agree it is a dead lock and hence answer is E.

GMAT Course Reviews

563 reviews

1168 reviews

431 reviews

359 reviews

147 reviews

5/5

5 Star (563 Reviews)

"Target Test Prep is the closest to the official version of the GMAT exam, about 99% accuracy in terms of the quality and quantity of information. The course has excellently created singular sets of focused lessons and tests for every possible topic that one could come across in the official GMAT exam."

"The TTP course maximizes the efficiency of the time you spend studying. It will take time and effort but I could almost guarantee that if you complete the course exactly as it is laid out you will get an amazing score. They also have a very responsive team willing to help with any questions you might have."

"TTP has two things that I think no other test prep company offers: A teaching approach that reinforces understanding and an attitude that will give you the mental preparedness needed to succeed on the test. TTP gives you a deep understanding of the concept you need to know while teaching you how to think."

Write a Review