请教一道很混乱的逻辑题，NN们请帮帮我～～～/大全-3-20

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（同意） 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.

答案选E，可是我不是很明白这题的意思。请各位帮忙解释～～～～～～感激不尽

解释一下那个proposal：

当不止一个人被提名为某个office的负责人的时候，潜在的提名者必须首先同意自己被提名（然后才能成为一个被提名者），且在他说同意之前，必须告诉他其他的被提名者是谁。

问题：如果在被提名者同意之前，我们都不知道哪些人会最终被提名，那么，以下哪个答案符合原文的逻辑？

原文有一个条件：被提名者必须知道其他的提名人是谁，才能同意自己被提名。而问题中又有一个条件：在被提名者同意之前，我们不可能知道哪些人最终会被提名。也就是说，条件一中的那个条件，变成了条件二中的结果，而条件二中的结果，就是条件一中的条件，这是一个死循环，如果要同时遵循这两个条件的话，唯一的结果就是，谁也不可能被提名，因为谁也不知道其他的提名者，于是就不可能同意自己被提名。答案E正确。

注意题目给出的条件：当存在超过多个候选人的时候。

阿~原来如此!!感谢携隐NN的指教，真是一语道破我的迷思!谢谢!

原来是这样.也许大家没想出来是因为没有把先前说的情况作为既定的条件,而只单独考虑了后面的情况.
这个算是阅读方面的能力吧?

谢谢携隐!