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

Redeem

Target Test Prep · GMAT

Choose how you want to prepare

Learn live with an expert or move at your own pace. Every option includes the complete TTP study system.

★★★★★5.0563 reviews
Newsweek Readers’ Choice Awards 2026 winner: Target Test Prep, #1 Test Prep
NEWSWEEK READERS’ CHOICE AWARDS 2026

Target Test Prep was voted #1 Best Test Prep in the 2026 Newsweek Readers’ Choice™ Awards.

GMATLiveTeach Starts Oct 17
Chris Peckover, Target Test Prep GMAT expert
LIVE ONLINE CLASSES

Get Ready for GMAT Test Day Faster with Live Online Classes

with Chris Peckover, 100th-Percentile GMAT Scorer

Oct 17 · Chris Peckover
Sat · 11:00 AM to 2:00 PM ET
Oct 20 · Chris Peckover
Tue, Thu · 8:00 to 10:00 PM ET
Oct 25 · Josh Braslow
Sun · 1:00 to 4:00 PM ET
Included
40 hours of live online classes + 6 months of TTP OnDemand
  • Attend the first class for free
  • Every class is recorded, so you never fall behind
View classes & enroll
Limited seats availableTarget Test Prep
EALiveTeachOnDemand 5 seats left Start anytime
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Target Test Prep EA OnDemand

Self-paced EA prep. Study on your schedule.

Logan Thompson
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Sep 6 to Dec 6, 2026

with Logan Thompson

165+ EA score guarantee
$05-day trial no automatic billing
Schedule
Sun · 9:30 AM to 12:30 PM ET
Included
40 hours of live online classes plus six months of access to the complete TTP EA OnDemand course.
  • 165+ EA Score Guarantee
  • 4,100+ Quant, Verbal, and Integrated Reasoning practice questions
  • 400+ hours of in-depth video lessons
  • 3,000+ step-by-step video solutions
View EA class & enroll Start free 5-day trial
Limited cohort · enrollment openTrial includes full course accessTarget Test Prep
GMATOnDemand Start anytime
SELF-PACED MASTERCLASS

Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand

Complete access from day one. Study on your schedule.

715+ score guarantee
$0to start then $127/mo
  • Personalized study plan and analytics
  • Thousands of lessons and practice questions
Start free 5-day trial
Read 563 reviewsTarget Test Prep

Compare the format, schedule, and included access before enrolling. Prices and seat counts shown reflect the supplied offer details.

bylaws

Expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Subscribe topic
Previous Topic Next Topic
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2010 10:47 pm
Thanked: 10 times
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
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Legendary Member
Posts: 2326
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 3:54 amFollowed by: 2 members
Thanked: 173 times
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
Join the discussion
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 407
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 1:20 amFollowed by: 1 member
Location: India
Thanked: 20 times

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
Join the discussion
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
Join the discussion