Critical Reasoning

Southington University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations from 80 percent of the potential donors they contacted this year. This rate would be the expected rate if the only potential donors contacted were those who have donated in the past. But good fund-raisers constantly contact less likely prospects in an effort to expand the donor base. Thus the high success rate, far from showing that the fund-raisers did a good job, shows insufficient canvassing effort.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

A. Among potential donors contacted by Southington University's fund-raisers, the majority of those who did not make donations were people who had made donations to the university in the past.
B. The amount of money raised by Southington University's fundraisers this year was lower than the amount they had raised in any of the previous several years.
C. Individual donations made to Southington University this year were, on average, slightly larger than were average individual donations made to many other universities.
D. Fund-raisers contacting past donors are not only to get new donations but also to get names of potential new donors to contact.
E. The majority of the donations that fund-raisers succeeded in getting for Southington University were from who had never given to the university before.

OA is E.
[spoiler]I wanted to know why A is wrong ?[/spoiler]

What is the source of this question ?

gocoder wrote:What is the source of this question ?

Source is GmatPrep Exam Pack 2

mack13 wrote:Southington University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations from 80 percent of the potential donors they contacted this year. This rate would be the expected rate if the only potential donors contacted were those who have donated in the past. But good fund-raisers constantly contact less likely prospects in an effort to expand the donor base. Thus the high success rate, far from showing that the fund-raisers did a good job, shows insufficient canvassing effort.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

A. Among potential donors contacted by Southington University's fund-raisers, the majority of those who did not make donations were people who had made donations to the university in the past.
B. The amount of money raised by Southington University's fundraisers this year was lower than the amount they had raised in any of the previous several years.
C. Individual donations made to Southington University this year were, on average, slightly larger than were average individual donations made to many other universities.
D. Fund-raisers contacting past donors are not only to get new donations but also to get names of potential new donors to contact.
E. The majority of the donations that fund-raisers succeeded in getting for Southington University were from donors who had never given to the university before.

Premise:
Good fund-raisers constantly contact less likely prospects -- in other words, people who have never donated before -- in an effort to expand the donor base.
Conclusion:
The high success rate of Southington University's fund-raisers shows that they did not do a good job.

Here, doing a good job = expanding the donor base.

E: The majority of the donations that fund-raisers succeeded in getting for Southington University were from donors who had never given to the university before.
Here, a majority of the donations were obtained from NEW DONORS, indicating that fund-raisers expanded the donor base.
Thus, the conclusion that fund-raisers did not do a good job is WEAKENED.

The correct answer is E.

A: Among potential donors contacted by Southington University's fund-raisers, the majority of those who did not make donations were people who had made donations to the university in the past.
Here, no information is offered about the source of the donations obtained by fund-raisers.
Thus, it is possible that a majority of these donations were obtained from old donors, indicating that fund-raisers did NOT expand the donor base.
In this case, the conclusion that fundraisers did not do a good job would be STRENGTHENED.
Eliminate A.

GMATGuruNY wrote:

mack13 wrote:Southington University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations from 80 percent of the potential donors they contacted this year. This rate would be the expected rate if the only potential donors contacted were those who have donated in the past. But good fund-raisers constantly contact less likely prospects in an effort to expand the donor base. Thus the high success rate, far from showing that the fund-raisers did a good job, shows insufficient canvassing effort.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

A. Among potential donors contacted by Southington University's fund-raisers, the majority of those who did not make donations were people who had made donations to the university in the past.
B. The amount of money raised by Southington University's fundraisers this year was lower than the amount they had raised in any of the previous several years.
C. Individual donations made to Southington University this year were, on average, slightly larger than were average individual donations made to many other universities.
D. Fund-raisers contacting past donors are not only to get new donations but also to get names of potential new donors to contact.
E. The majority of the donations that fund-raisers succeeded in getting for Southington University were from donors who had never given to the university before.

Premise:
Good fund-raisers constantly contact less likely prospects -- in other words, people who have never donated before -- in an effort to expand the donor base.
Conclusion:
The high success rate of Southington University's fund-raisers shows that they did not do a good job.

Here, doing a good job = expanding the donor base.

E: The majority of the donations that fund-raisers succeeded in getting for Southington University were from donors who had never given to the university before.
Here, a majority of the donations were obtained from NEW DONORS, indicating that fund-raisers expanded the donor base.
Thus, the conclusion that fund-raisers did not do a good job is WEAKENED.

The correct answer is E.

A: Among potential donors contacted by Southington University's fund-raisers, the majority of those who did not make donations were people who had made donations to the university in the past.
Here, no information is offered about the source of the donations obtained by fund-raisers.
Thus, it is possible that a majority of these donations were obtained from old donors, indicating that fund-raisers did NOT expand the donor base.
In this case, the conclusion that fundraisers did not do a good job would be STRENGTHENED.
Eliminate A.

can you please shed your opinion on option D also.

GMATGuruNY wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 04, 2016 3:40 am

mack13 wrote:Southington University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations from 80 percent of the potential donors they contacted this year. This rate would be the expected rate if the only potential donors contacted were those who have donated in the past. But good fund-raisers constantly contact less likely prospects in an effort to expand the donor base. Thus the high success rate, far from showing that the fund-raisers did a good job, shows insufficient canvassing effort.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

A. Among potential donors contacted by Southington University's fund-raisers, the majority of those who did not make donations were people who had made donations to the university in the past.
B. The amount of money raised by Southington University's fundraisers this year was lower than the amount they had raised in any of the previous several years.
C. Individual donations made to Southington University this year were, on average, slightly larger than were average individual donations made to many other universities.
D. Fund-raisers contacting past donors are not only to get new donations but also to get names of potential new donors to contact.
E. The majority of the donations that fund-raisers succeeded in getting for Southington University were from donors who had never given to the university before.

Premise:
Good fund-raisers constantly contact less likely prospects -- in other words, people who have never donated before -- in an effort to expand the donor base.
Conclusion:
The high success rate of Southington University's fund-raisers shows that they did not do a good job.

Here, doing a good job = expanding the donor base.

E: The majority of the donations that fund-raisers succeeded in getting for Southington University were from donors who had never given to the university before.
Here, a majority of the donations were obtained from NEW DONORS, indicating that fund-raisers expanded the donor base.
Thus, the conclusion that fund-raisers did not do a good job is WEAKENED.

The correct answer is E.

A: Among potential donors contacted by Southington University's fund-raisers, the majority of those who did not make donations were people who had made donations to the university in the past.
Here, no information is offered about the source of the donations obtained by fund-raisers.
Thus, it is possible that a majority of these donations were obtained from old donors, indicating that fund-raisers did NOT expand the donor base.
In this case, the conclusion that fundraisers did not do a good job would be STRENGTHENED.
Eliminate A.

Hello Mitch,

I see a problem with option E.

Let's say that they contacted 10 people, and 8 donated. Total amount donated was $100. Of 8 people, only 2 people donated $99, and these people donated for the first time ever. Remaining 6 donated $0.17 each and have done so in the past. In this scenario, we can see that majority of donations (i.e. $99 out of $100) were made by people who had never donated before. It doesn't weaken the argument, and if anything, supports the argument.

What do you think? Can you please help?

Personally, I didn't quite understand the essence of the question