BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

bylaws

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2010 10:47 pm
Thanked: 10 times

bylaws

by Phirozz » Mon Mar 01, 2010 8:18 am
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
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Legendary Member
Posts: 2326
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 3:54 am
Thanked: 173 times
Followed by:2 members
GMAT Score:710

by gmatmachoman » Mon Mar 01, 2010 8:36 am
it is E.

This CR hinges ard formal logic,seldom tested in GMAT but tested more on LSAT.

Lets come to the argument.

proposal says the prospective nominee should know about Y and then do X.
but existing scenario says for the prospective nominee should do X and then only he can know abt Y.

In that case, assuming the existing condition to be valid, the proposal would make it impossible for anyone to become a nominee if there are more than one nominee.

E wins
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 407
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 1:20 am
Location: India
Thanked: 20 times
Followed by:1 members

by hrishi19884 » Mon Mar 01, 2010 8:37 am
Phirozz wrote: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
My stake on E

According to the logic of the proposal, before giving consent each nominee must tell who are the other nominees.

But the question tells the fact that it is impossible to know the other nominees until each nominee gives the consent.

Hence, logic of the proposal would not work and no nominee will be named for an office.
Hrishi

"As you sow, so shall you reap"
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 303
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2015 10:23 am

by joseph32 » Sun May 15, 2016 11:59 pm
I like the explanation on E
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1