大全2-20

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）

(E) If there is more than one prospective nominee, the proposal would make it impossible for anyone to become a nominee.

这道题是不是问：

      if it cannot be known who the actual nominees are until prospective nominees have given their consent to be nominated

and 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.

我理不出头绪，希望牛人帮忙解释一下为什么E是对的。谢谢

我的理解是这样的， 题干是一个充分条件的表述，注意这里的先后顺序，第一个条件是prospective nominees are told who the other nominees are, 然后是porspective nominees consent to the nomination, 有了这两个充分条件这个perspective nominees 才能被提名 （当然more than one nominees也不能少)。 问题的问法偷换了概念，关键是对问题中高亮部分not .. until 的理解，翻译过来就是prospective nominees 不知道还有谁被提名直到他们自己同意这个提名之后。 也就是说consent to nomination在前，are told who the other nominees are在后，跟题干的表述刚好相反。因此得出的结论是E.