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

[spoiler]OA A but I didn't understand the language of this option . I chose C[/spoiler]

Here of contacted 100/ donated 80 -> 80% ---this is exceptionally high for university fund raisers.
Now

Premise 1: Smithtown University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations from 80 percent of the potential donors they contacted.

Conclusion 1: This success rate, exceptionally high for university fund-raisers, does not indicate that they were doing a good job.

Premise 2: 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.

Conclusion 2: The high success rate shows insufficient canvassing effort.

Option C - out of scope: Most donations came from people who were not contacted by the fund raisers though they had previously donated (they may have had been contacted in the earlier rounds but not this time)..... since contacted=100 is the scope, those who were not contacted (this time) are out of scope

Option 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.

Can anybody please explain it for me , What this statement means.
As far as i understand is that Smith Town University's fund-raisers were able to contact with those donors who are better donors than potential donors of other university. So what i thought that by this statement these fund raisers did their job exceptionally well than other university fund raisers.

Guys please help me understand this statement better.

jainrahul1985 wrote: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

[spoiler]OA A but I didn't understand the language of this option . I chose C[/spoiler]

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 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.

IMO A

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

Premises:
Good job = 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 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 not to donations 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.

Thanks a lot Guru I mis understood it completely, I was aware that the correct answer choice has to be option A because other options are not strengthening the argument. But i was not able to understand how to comprehend it even after reading your explanation of answer choice A
i read it couple of times and then got it right that what is actually the option is saying.
How to deal with such typically constructed options.
Any Suggestions..

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.

GMATGuruNY - There seems to be a missing link between:

Smithtown's success rate with potential new donors was not higher than that of other universities

and

Smithtown's higher donation rate was due to donations not from new donors (less likely prospects) but from old donors

Could you further explain? Thanks

g000fy wrote:

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.

GMATGuruNY - There seems to be a missing link between:

Smithtown's success rate with potential new donors was not higher than that of other universities

and

Smithtown's higher donation rate was due to donations not from new donors (less likely prospects) but from old donors

Could you further explain? Thanks

One of the premises is that the fundraisers at Smithtown had a higher success rate (80% of those contacted made donations) than did the fundraisers at other schools.

Answer choice A:
Smithtown's fundraisers 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. In other words, in terms of securing new donors, the fundraisers at Smithtown were not more successful.

Thus, the higher success rate at Smithtown must have been due to old donors (those who had donated previously and were more likely to donate again).

Does this help?