大家帮忙看一下这道搞脑子的逻辑题

sweetchaco

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

答案是E    谁能解释一下题目的意思捏 我脑子有点搞啊看了后

sdcar2010

LS is right on the money.

The reason is simple.  Who would give the FIRST consent to the normination?  Nobody! The reason is that before the first norminee gives his consent to be norminated, he must be told who the other norminees will be.  But there is no way anyone can say for sure who would be giving their consent to the normination before hand. In addition, no one has committed yet since this candidate is supposed to be the first to give consent!

The same logic goes for other candidates as well.  No one can give their consent since no one can predict who would be among the final candidates.  Even God does not know that!

heyifeifei

我的理解是，它的逻辑说，在一个人被提名之前，必须得到那个人的同意，但是同时，他同意之前，要必须得知其他的已被提名的人是哪些。

所以E选项是对的，因为如果有几个候选人的话，他们每个人在同意之前，是必须要得知哪些人已被提名了，但是他们每个人都无法得知，因为互相都不知道，所以就没有办法同意被提名。