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 fund-raisers 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 fund-raisers 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.
5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP
Available with Beat the GMAT members only code
MORE DETAILS
CR Problem
This topic has expert replies
-
6983manish
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 65
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2011 12:27 am
- Thanked: 6 times
-
singh181
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 121
- Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 8:44 am
- Thanked: 9 times
- Followed by:1 members
- GMAT Score:610
Since Smith's Fundraisers didnt get less-likely prospect, therefore, their canvassing efforts were insufficient.
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 fund-raisers for other universities in their contacts with such people.
This statements show that these smith's Fundraiser were as successful in their contacts with less-likely prospect as the other Univ's. Strengthen
(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.WEAKEN
(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.IRRELEVANT. We are interested in the canvassing efforts of Smith's Fundraisers.
(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.WEAKEN
(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. WEAKEN[/quote]
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 fund-raisers for other universities in their contacts with such people.
This statements show that these smith's Fundraiser were as successful in their contacts with less-likely prospect as the other Univ's. Strengthen
(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.WEAKEN
(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.IRRELEVANT. We are interested in the canvassing efforts of Smith's Fundraisers.
(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.WEAKEN
(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. WEAKEN[/quote]
-
chendawg
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 163
- Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 7:56 am
- Location: Philadelphia
- Thanked: 13 times
- Followed by:4 members
- GMAT Score:660
After analyzing this problem some more, I've come to the conclusion that I don't like this question lol. What's the source? I don't like ANY of the choices, but if I had to pick an answer, I'd pick A. Here's how I thought of it:
Premises - 80% of potential donors contacted gave money. Old donors more likely to give money. Good fundraisers target new donor base.
Sub-conclusion - High success rates show that fundraisers only targeted old donors, does not mean good job done.
Conclusion - High success rate shows the fundraisers didn't widen their base, thus the fundraisers were not successful.
(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.
Slightly strengthen/neutral. We don't know whether other universities' contact with potential donors who had never given before is considered successful. It could be that 10% of new donors donating is considered a success or 40% of new donors donating is considered a success. But at least the university is on par with everyone else.
(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.
Irrelevant. We don't care about the size the donations. We care about WHERE the donations came from, new donors or old.
(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.
Weaken. This shows that the donations were mostly people who had donated before, and these people donated without ANY contact with the donors. This means the fundraisers were busy with non-old(read: new) 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.
Weaken. This would show new donors made up more than half of the 80% of potential donors.
(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.
Irrelevant. Although more than half the money could be from new donors, one new donor could have represented all of the new donor money.
Premises - 80% of potential donors contacted gave money. Old donors more likely to give money. Good fundraisers target new donor base.
Sub-conclusion - High success rates show that fundraisers only targeted old donors, does not mean good job done.
Conclusion - High success rate shows the fundraisers didn't widen their base, thus the fundraisers were not successful.
(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.
Slightly strengthen/neutral. We don't know whether other universities' contact with potential donors who had never given before is considered successful. It could be that 10% of new donors donating is considered a success or 40% of new donors donating is considered a success. But at least the university is on par with everyone else.
(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.
Irrelevant. We don't care about the size the donations. We care about WHERE the donations came from, new donors or old.
(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.
Weaken. This shows that the donations were mostly people who had donated before, and these people donated without ANY contact with the donors. This means the fundraisers were busy with non-old(read: new) 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.
Weaken. This would show new donors made up more than half of the 80% of potential donors.
(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.
Irrelevant. Although more than half the money could be from new donors, one new donor could have represented all of the new donor money.
Last edited by chendawg on Wed Mar 30, 2011 7:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
I'm not bipolar...I'm bi-winning!!
-
6983manish
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 65
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2011 12:27 am
- Thanked: 6 times
chendawg wrote:After analyzing this problem some more, I've come to the conclusion that I don't like this question lol. What's the source? If I had to pick an answer, I'd pick A. Here's how I thought of it:
Premises - 80% of potential donors contacted gave money. Old donors more likely to give money. Good fundraisers target new donor base.
Sub-conclusion - High success rates show that fundraisers only targeted old donors, does not mean good job done.
Conclusion - High success rate shows the fundraisers didn't widen their base, thus the fundraisers were not successful.
(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.
Slightly strengthen. We don't know whether other universities' contact with potential donors who had never given before is considered successful. It could be that 10% of new donors donating is considered a success or 40% of new donors donating is considered a success. But at least the university is on par with everyone else.
OA is A.
Yes the OA is "A". I found this problem on Gmatclub.
(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.
Irrelevant. We don't care about the size the donations. We care about WHERE the donations came from, new donors or old.
(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.
Weaken. This shows that the donations were mostly people who had donated before, and these people donated without ANY contact with the donors. This means the fundraisers were busy with non-old(read: new) 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.
Weaken. This would show new donors made up more than half of the 80% of potential donors.
(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.
Irrelevant. Although more than half the money could be from new donors, one new donor could have represented all of the new donor money.
