Critical Reasoning

Smithtown University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations from 80 percent of the potential donors they contacted. This success rate, exceptionally high for university fund-raisers, does not indicate that they were doing a good job. On the contrary, since the people most likely to donate are those who have donated in the past, good fundraisers
constantly try less-likely prospects in an effort to expand the donor base. The high success rate shows insufficient canvassing effort.

Which of the following, if true, provides more support for the argument?

A. Smithtown University's fund-raisers were successful in their contacts with potential donors who had never given before about as frequently as were fundraisers for other universities in their contacts with such people.
B. This year the average size of the donations to Smithtown University from new donors when the university's fund-raisers had contacted was larger than the average size of donations from donors who had given to the university before.
C. This year most of the donations that came to Smithtown University from people who had previously donated to it were made without the university's fund-raisers having made any contact with the donors.
D. The majority of the donations that fund-raisers succeeded in getting for
Smithtown University this year were from donors who had never given to the university before.
E. More than half of the money raised by Smithtown University's fund-raisers came from donors who had never previously donated to the university.

OA A... can someone explain why specifically C is incorrect.....

Smithtown University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations from 80 percent of the potential donors they contacted. This success rate, exceptionally high for university fund-raisers, does not indicate that they were doing a good job. On the contrary, since the people most likely to donate are those who have donated in the past, good fundraisers constantly try less-likely prospects in an effort to expand the donor base. The high success rate shows insufficient canvassing effort.

Which of the following, if true, provides more support for the argument?

A. Smithtown University's fund-raisers were successful in their contacts with potential donors who had never given before about as frequently as were fundraisers for other universities in their contacts with such people.
B. This year the average size of the donations to Smithtown University from new donors when the university's fund-raisers had contacted was larger than the average size of donations from donors who had given to the university before.
C. This year most of the donations that came to Smithtown University from people who had previously donated to it were made without the university's fund-raisers having made any contact with the donors.
D. The majority of the donations that fund-raisers succeeded in getting for Smithtown University this year were from donors who had never given to the university before.
E. More than half of the money raised by Smithtown University's fund-raisers came from donors who had never previously donated to the university

Conclusion:
Smithtown's fundraisers did not do a good job.

Premises:
Doing a good job requires constantly trying less likely prospects (donors who have not donated before)
Smithtown's fundraisers got donations from 80% of the donors that they contacted.
This success rate is especially high for fundraisers.

Assumptions:
Smithtown's fundraisers did not constantly try less likely prospects (new donors)
The donations that the fundraisers received did not come from new donors.

Prediction:
The correct answer will suggest that the fundraisers did not contact new donors (less likely prospects) and thus did not do a good job.

Answer choice A:
This answer choice states that Smithtown's success rate with potential new donors was not higher than that of other universities. This means that Smithtown's higher donation rate was due to donations NOT from new donors (less likely prospects) but from OLD donors. This information supports the assumption that THE DONATIONS DID NOT COME FROM NEW DONORS and thus strengthens the conclusion that Smithtown's fundraisers DID NOT DO A GOOD JOB.

Answer choices B, D and E:
These all weaken the conclusion because they suggest that the donations came from new donors. If the donations came from new donors, then the fundraisers did a good job.

Answer choice C:
This answer choice tells us only that the fundraisers did not contact old donors. To support the conclusion that the fundraisers did not do a good job, we need an answer choice that shows that they did not contact new donors (less likely prospects).

The correct answer is A.

Good Day Guru
i am not able to understand as how A is supporting the argument

A says: Smithtown University's fund-raisers were successful in their contacts with potential donors who had never given before about as frequently as were fund-raisers for other universities in their contacts with such people

NOW my POINT is that we REALLY do not know the SUCCESS rate of fund raisers of other universities when they deal with NEW donors . if i say that this success rate is high enough THEN A will NEGATE the argument INSTEAD of supporting it

Guru WROTE: Answer choice A:
This answer choice states that Smithtown's success rate with potential new donors was not higher than that of other universities. This means that Smithtown's higher donation rate was due to donations NOT from new donors (less likely prospects) but from OLD donors. This information supports the assumption that THE DONATIONS DID NOT COME FROM NEW DONORS and thus strengthens the conclusion that Smithtown's fundraisers DID NOT DO A GOOD JOB.

my concern is regarding the BOLD portion of your TEXT . we DO NOT KNOW the success rate of FUND RAISERS of other universities when they DEAL with NEW DONAR . what if that success rate is HIGH

thanks and best regards

aditya8062 wrote:my concern is regarding the BOLD portion of your TEXT . we DO NOT KNOW the success rate of FUND RAISERS of other universities when they DEAL with NEW DONAR . what if that success rate is HIGH

According to the passage, the people most likely to donate are those who have donated in the past, implying that universities are typically successful with old donors.
If the non-Smithtown universities were also highly successful with NEW donors, then the OVERALL success rate at these universities would be HIGH.
But the passage states that SMITHTOWN'S overall success rate is EXCEPTIONALLY high, implying that the overall success rate at other universities is relatively LOW.
Thus, it is not possible that the other universities are highly successful with new donors.