The following proposal to amend the bylaws of an oaganization 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.
这个是为什么呢???
我没看懂什么意思,请指教~~
文章说， 在知道其他人是谁后才能有资格批准自己被提名，
题目说， 只有在提名后才知道这人是谁
A depends on B , B depends on A,
所以2人以上的话， 怎么也选不了
还是不太明白，能讲得详细一点吗？
读懂是关键。没什么悬念。
啊，我懂了，谢谢！！！
根据题意，这个proposal规定在多个办公室候选者被提名的情况下，有两个前提条件必须具备：首先，所有被提名者都要被告知其他提名者是谁；其次，提名必须获得被提名者的同意。此二条件必须同时具备，缺一不可。
由提问可知，提名已征得被提名者的同意，但被提名者并不知道其他提名者是谁，故并不符合题中proposal所规定的多个办公室候选者被提名的前提条件。所以，这项多项提名不能通过，即任何人都不能成为nominee.E选项正确。
A：“被提名者不知道其他提名者是谁”，是问题给定的条件，不能被改变。故A不符合已设定的前提条件。
B：扩大选择在文中根本没涉及。
C：否定last nominee与first nominee的平等待遇文中根本没涉及。
D：允许nominee在不被他人知道的情况下推出竞争文中也为涉及。
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |