大全-test3-20 help!

sweatflys

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.

我不懂题目的意思啊

applebeer

题目的意思大概是这样的（我个人的理解啦）

公司有职位空缺，要找候选人。并规定，如果候选人的人数不止一个的话，那么所有有可能成为候选人的人都必须：首先，同意被提名。其次，在同意被提名前，必须被告之谁是其他的候选人。

那么，问题是，如果不同意被提名，则不能知道谁是其他的候选人。那这样的话，就和公司规定相左，所以就不可能会有人被提名。

不知道是不是这样理解，还希望大 NN指点一下

sweatflys

谢谢赐教,在你的提示下我想明白了!

vincentwh

我对这道题也有点疑惑: 我的理解是PROPOSAL说当提名者多于一个人时,所有有可能被提名的人都应该明确表态自己是否同意被提名;而且在这之前会被告之其他的提名者是谁.

关键是对问题的理解:"IF IT CANNOT BE KNOWN WHO THE ACTUAL NOMINEES ARE UNTIL PROSPECTIVE NOMINEES HAVE GIVEN THEIR CONSENT TO BE NOMINATED?"   这是说"直到所有有可能被提名的人都表示自己同意被提名有时,才知道哪些人是实际的被提名者."的话,那么如果有的人因为知道其他人被提名后而放弃CONSENT,就有可能都不CONSENT?

还是有点迷惑,而且为什么D选项不对呢?

谢谢大家的指点!!

britney-gaos

这题我是用排除法做的。因为依据bylaws，每个prospective nominees都是平等的，且不可能分出先后，因此直接排除了C中the last nominee 和D中a specific person；此外，A项中be aware of 不妥，属于意识形态的东西与客观logic不可关联。B选项明显是说反了，因此只能选E。如果时间足够，E也可以推敲出来吧。