Please help with the approach to solve this one.

[ramendra.awesome]

This one is a GMAT prep question:

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.

I need help with how to solve this question. If we start from option E and work our way up, we find E is the correct answer. But what if I start with A, I get stuck at C. Please help. Thanks!

[RonPurewal]

I'm confused. Why would the order in which you read the choices have any significance? (The words in the choices don't change if they're read in a different order. So, correct answers are still correct, and wrong answers are still wrong.)

--

There are lots and lots of words in this problem. The first thing to do"”as in all CR problems"”is to simplify the situation into terms that a 10-year-old could follow.

Let's say there are two nominees, Darlene and Marlene.
According to these rules:
* Before Darlene can become a nominee, she has to be told that Marlene is a nominee.
* Before Marlene can become a nominee, she has to be told that Darlene is a nominee.

You can see why this is problematic. It's impossible.

So, C is also impossible, because you can't even have more than 1 nominee. If you are limited to 1 nominee, then "first" and "last" nominees have no meaning.

[RonPurewal]

In fact, in strict terms, C is provably false.

As illustrated above, this plan doesn't allow for more than 1 nominee; there can only be one.

So, "the first nominee" and "the last nominee" are ... the same person.

It's clearly impossible for someone and him/herself to receive "unequal treatment", so C is demonstrably false.