Critical Reasoning

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.

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

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.

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..

nice 1 - thanks.

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..

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.