Welcome! Check out our free B-School Guides to learn how you compare with other applicants.
Login or Register
 

Smithtown University

This topic has 16 member replies
Goto page
  • 1,
  • 2
Next
Bookmark
Previous Topic Next Topic
gmat009 GMAT Destroyer! Default Avatar
Joined
31 Aug 2008
Posted:
458 messages
Thanked:
3 times
Smithtown University Post Mon Oct 13, 2008 1:38 pm
Elapsed Time: 00:00
  • Lap #[LAPCOUNT] ([LAPTIME])
    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.

    Plz. explain....

    Need free GMAT or MBA advice from an expert? Register for Beat The GMAT now and post your question in these forums!
    punagr Just gettin' started! Default Avatar
    Joined
    14 Jul 2008
    Posted:
    1 messages
    Post Mon Oct 13, 2008 3:22 pm
    Good one !

    my stake is at B ! :

    The Argument claims that the fundraisers didn't do a good job i.e most of the money that came was through previously known people/contacts.Now we need to support this.

    A is out of scope - no need to compare with other universities.

    C This will weaken the argument bcoz it has been mentioned that 80% of the money came through contacts and this option(C) says that all previuos contacts were not even contacted.Hence the 80% who were contacted must have been the ones who are new.

    D this option also weakens the argument.

    E this is same as D

    schakiiieee Rising GMAT Star Default Avatar
    Joined
    23 Mar 2008
    Posted:
    45 messages
    Followed by:
    1 members
    Target GMAT Score:
    700
    GMAT Score:
    750
    Post Mon Oct 13, 2008 6:00 pm
    IMO A.

    I would dismiss C,D and E for the same reasons as punagr did.

    However, in my opinion the comparison in A makes sense as it states:

    If the university was no better than other universities the better success rate must come from less canvassing efforts and more concentration on existing donators.

    For me, B is out of scope...

    kris610 Really wants to Beat The GMAT! Default Avatar
    Joined
    09 Mar 2007
    Posted:
    198 messages
    Thanked:
    7 times
    Post Mon Oct 13, 2008 7:18 pm
    B is the perfect choice.

    The argument says that new donors are less-likely to donate.

    So, if you contact more new donors, a smaller percentage of people would have donated.

    But these new donors would become a part of the donor base and more likely to donate more the next time.

    The fact that 80% of the people the fundraisers contacted donated says that the fundraisers contacted more donors who donated previously.

    Among the choices, B says that the new donors *when contacted* donated more on average. This strengthens the argument that the fundraisers would've raised more if they had contacted new donors because the previous donors would have most likely donated even if they were not contacted.

    gmat009 GMAT Destroyer! Default Avatar
    Joined
    31 Aug 2008
    Posted:
    458 messages
    Thanked:
    3 times
    Post Mon Oct 13, 2008 9:10 pm
    OA is A, IMO C

    schakiiieee Rising GMAT Star Default Avatar
    Joined
    23 Mar 2008
    Posted:
    45 messages
    Followed by:
    1 members
    Target GMAT Score:
    700
    GMAT Score:
    750
    Post Tue Oct 14, 2008 2:02 am
    A:
    A explains why the success rate was higher compared to other Universities, which strengthens the argument. It explains the contradiction between the high success rate and the claim that they didnt try hard enough. --> A

    B:
    The paragraph does not talk about the percentage of how many people donated even though they were not contacted. It only says that when they donate - they donated more. It does not explain why the University has got such a high success rate.

    C:
    Unrelated to the paragraph. The paragraph does not talk about people who donated without beeing contacted.

    raunekk GMAT Titan Default Avatar
    Joined
    16 Apr 2008
    Posted:
    1161 messages
    Thanked:
    56 times
    Target GMAT Score:
    750+
    Post Tue Oct 14, 2008 3:02 am
    imo:C

    gmat009 GMAT Destroyer! Default Avatar
    Joined
    31 Aug 2008
    Posted:
    458 messages
    Thanked:
    3 times
    Post Tue Oct 14, 2008 8:30 am
    schakiiieee wrote:
    A:
    A explains why the success rate was higher compared to other Universities, which strengthens the argument. It explains the contradiction between the high success rate and the claim that they didnt try hard enough. --> A

    B:
    The paragraph does not talk about the percentage of how many people donated even though they were not contacted. It only says that when they donate - they donated more. It does not explain why the University has got such a high success rate.

    C:
    Unrelated to the paragraph. The paragraph does not talk about people who donated without beeing contacted.
    C is not unrelated to paragraph.
    If you read passage carefully -" 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. "
    C makes perfect sense to support this argument.

    Can anyone plz. explain.........

    raunekk GMAT Titan Default Avatar
    Joined
    16 Apr 2008
    Posted:
    1161 messages
    Thanked:
    56 times
    Target GMAT Score:
    750+
    Post Tue Oct 14, 2008 9:09 am
    @ gmat009

    i m equally confused:),,,,


    source pls??

    Gmatss Rising GMAT Star Default Avatar
    Joined
    16 Sep 2008
    Posted:
    67 messages
    Thanked:
    2 times
    Post Wed Oct 15, 2008 11:23 am
    what a bad question, C makes perfect sense to me as well

    rohangupta83 GMAT Destroyer! Default Avatar
    Joined
    31 May 2007
    Posted:
    541 messages
    Followed by:
    2 members
    Thanked:
    21 times
    Test Date:
    December 22nd
    Target GMAT Score:
    760
    GMAT Score:
    680
    Post Wed Oct 15, 2008 2:17 pm
    the argument says that the high success rate shows insufficient canvassing effort.

    'A' would weaken the argument as 'A' claims that Smithtown University's fund raisers were as successful as fund raisers from other Universities to ta in potential donors (people who have never donated before) whereas we need evidence proving failure of Smithtown University's fund raisers efforts to raise money from potential (who have never donated before) donors.

    'C' states that most of the donations that came to Smithtown were from previous donors, hence there were few donations from new donors - thus strengthening our argument.

    I can't believe OA is 'A'

    4meonly GMAT Destroyer! Default Avatar
    Joined
    16 Aug 2008
    Posted:
    891 messages
    Thanked:
    24 times
    Target GMAT Score:
    750)
    GMAT Score:
    660(
    Post Sat Oct 18, 2008 8:03 am
    Yeh, good one!!

    I vote for A
    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.

    This strengthens that fund-raisers were not good in fund-raising.

    80% is good figure, but it is "averaged"
    Digging deeper, comparing rates of responses among potential donors who had never given before gives that Smithtown University's fund-raisers were not better than those of other universities.
    So, the rate of responses among "tough donators" is similar and this provides more support for the conclision of the argument.

    Conclusion of the argument is "This success rate, exceptionally high for university fund-raisers, does not indicate that they were doing a good job"

    nervesofsteel GMAT Destroyer! Default Avatar
    Joined
    15 Aug 2008
    Posted:
    594 messages
    Thanked:
    12 times
    Post Sat Oct 18, 2008 11:31 am
    Im confused though A sounds good...

    But comparison of success rate of one Univ with other in one aspect doesn't show that The effort of Univ 1 were more concentrated with old donors ...

    maihuna GMAT Titan Default Avatar
    Joined
    28 Dec 2008
    Posted:
    1578 messages
    Followed by:
    7 members
    Thanked:
    80 times
    GMAT Score:
    720
    Post Tue Dec 22, 2009 8:52 am
    Yes I think A make sense. See the A and C the two close contenders below:

    Situation: Fundraiser @Smithtown(where it is btw) were able to take donation from 80% of the people, still the author feels the effort putted by fundraisers in canvassing is insufficient, as good fundraiser try to increase their base by contacting first time donors.

    A. 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.

    Make sense: It is saying that fundraiser @Smithtown were first time donor only as much as fund raisers at other universities. It means they are not exceptional in attracting first time donor to any high degree than other universities fund raiser. So the fund raisers have not tried to raise the donor base as putted explicitly in argument. We really do not need a percentage to prove our point.

    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.
    This is a good shell game answer that talks about most of the donations, we are not interested in most of the donations, but the fund raiser efforts to expand the donor base.

    _________________
    Charged up again to beat the beast Smile

    pandeyvineet24 GMAT Destroyer! Default Avatar
    Joined
    02 Jun 2008
    Posted:
    527 messages
    Thanked:
    15 times
    Target GMAT Score:
    720
    Post Tue Dec 22, 2009 9:52 am
    Should not C be the answer here. I think we are trying to support the conclusion that fundraisers did not do a good job in contacting the people who did not donate before.
    I think A can go either way. Since its a comparative statement. It can weaken the conclusion if the fund raisers from the other university contact far many people who have not donated before. On the other hand A can strengthen the conclusion if that number is relatively too small.

    Goto page
    • 1,
    • 2
    Next

    Best Conversation Starters
    1 vipulgoyal 30 topics
    2 hemant_rajput 21 topics
    3 guerrero 18 topics
    4 abhirup1711 17 topics
    5 sana.noor 16 topics
    See More Top Beat The GMAT Members...

    Most Active Experts
    1 image description Brent@GMATPrepNow

    GMAT Prep Now Teacher

    		 209 posts
    2 image description GMATGuruNY

    The Princeton Review Teacher

    		 134 posts
    3 image description Jim@StratusPrep

    Stratus Prep

    		 60 posts
    4 image description Jon@Admissionado

    Admissionado

    		 48 posts
    5 image description David@VeritasPrep

    Veritas Prep

    		 31 posts
    See More Top Beat The GMAT Experts