逻辑求救~

cristina2 · 发表于 2009-12-1 21:28:28

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.

E正确，提干都没看懂。

lpdeng · 发表于 2009-12-2 04:47:00

the passage says:
if more than one person is nominated, then
1) a prospective nominee must agree to the nomination -----> then a prospective nominee could become the official candidate
2) a prospective nominee must be told who other official candicate will be ---> then a prospective nominee could say "agree".

re-arrange:
a prospective nominee must be told who other official candicate will be ---> then a prospective nominee could say "agree" -----> then a prospective nominee could become the official candidate

Do you see the confliction in those two criteria? That's a mission impossible. How could anybody know and tell the potencial nominees who other official candicates will be, becasue no potencial nominee is able to say "agree" to become a offial candidates.

逻辑求救~

所属分类: GMAT考试

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()