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.
why is A correct and C wrong . I was confused understanding how could A be correct
5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP
Available with Beat the GMAT members only code
MORE DETAILS
smith
This topic has expert replies
-
jainrahul1985
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 228
- Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2008 8:08 am
- Thanked: 4 times
GMAT/MBA Expert
-
lunarpower
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 3380
- Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 am
- Thanked: 2256 times
- Followed by:1535 members
- GMAT Score:800
the basic substance of the argument is "wow, 80 percent is awfully high; that couldn't have come from reaching out to new people. instead, they must have just gone with a higher % than usual of people who had previously donated."
(a) notes that S.U. had the same rate -- a *low* rate, as indicated in the passage -- of success with new contacts. if this is the case, then it is impossible that S.U. had any greater success with *new* contacts (because this choice says that they didn't); therefore, this choice pretty much proves that the increased overall % had to come from previous donors. that's exactly what the argument says.
(c) actually works against the argument in the passage. note that the passage is saying that the fundraisers concentrated mostly on previous donors in order to achieve their high success %; however, this answer choice says that most of the previous donors weren't even contacted at all!
--
here's an analogy:
This year, Smith (a basketball player) made 80% of the shots that he attempted, an exceptionally high percentage for a player in Smith's league. However, this rate does not show that Smith is an exceptional shooter, because the best shooters take many shots from risky, lower-percentage locations 20 or more feet away from the basket. Instead, Smith's high shooting percentage simply shows that he takes most of his shots from locations very close to the basket.
choice (a), in this analogy, is "Smith's shooting percentage more than 20 feet away from the basket is just as low as other players' percentage from that far away." see how this helps the argument?
choice (c) is "Very few of the baskets scored by Smith's team from locations close to the basket were shot by Smith himself." see how this shows that Smith is actually a great shooter, thereby helping the argument?
(a) notes that S.U. had the same rate -- a *low* rate, as indicated in the passage -- of success with new contacts. if this is the case, then it is impossible that S.U. had any greater success with *new* contacts (because this choice says that they didn't); therefore, this choice pretty much proves that the increased overall % had to come from previous donors. that's exactly what the argument says.
(c) actually works against the argument in the passage. note that the passage is saying that the fundraisers concentrated mostly on previous donors in order to achieve their high success %; however, this answer choice says that most of the previous donors weren't even contacted at all!
--
here's an analogy:
This year, Smith (a basketball player) made 80% of the shots that he attempted, an exceptionally high percentage for a player in Smith's league. However, this rate does not show that Smith is an exceptional shooter, because the best shooters take many shots from risky, lower-percentage locations 20 or more feet away from the basket. Instead, Smith's high shooting percentage simply shows that he takes most of his shots from locations very close to the basket.
choice (a), in this analogy, is "Smith's shooting percentage more than 20 feet away from the basket is just as low as other players' percentage from that far away." see how this helps the argument?
choice (c) is "Very few of the baskets scored by Smith's team from locations close to the basket were shot by Smith himself." see how this shows that Smith is actually a great shooter, thereby helping the argument?
Ron has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.
--
Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi
--
Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.
Yves Saint-Laurent
--
Learn more about ron
--
Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi
--
Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.
Yves Saint-Laurent
--
Learn more about ron
GMAT/MBA Expert
-
lunarpower
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 3380
- Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 am
- Thanked: 2256 times
- Followed by:1535 members
- GMAT Score:800
scroll up.novel wrote:Some one please explain.
I think c is correct
Ron has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.
--
Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi
--
Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.
Yves Saint-Laurent
--
Learn more about ron
--
Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi
--
Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.
Yves Saint-Laurent
--
Learn more about ron
-
Target2009
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 574
- Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2009 1:47 pm
- Location: USA
- Thanked: 29 times
- Followed by:5 members
In second example it is clearly stated "AS LOW AS" but in question given choice A says "As frequently as" other college fund raisers. Are we assuming other college fund raisers perform badly. or When you say "As frequently As" , does it indicate LOW.?lunarpower wrote:the basic substance of the argument is "wow, 80 percent is awfully high; that couldn't have come from reaching out to new people. instead, they must have just gone with a higher % than usual of people who had previously donated."
(a) notes that S.U. had the same rate -- a *low* rate, as indicated in the passage -- of success with new contacts. if this is the case, then it is impossible that S.U. had any greater success with *new* contacts (because this choice says that they didn't); therefore, this choice pretty much proves that the increased overall % had to come from previous donors. that's exactly what the argument says.
(c) actually works against the argument in the passage. note that the passage is saying that the fundraisers concentrated mostly on previous donors in order to achieve their high success %; however, this answer choice says that most of the previous donors weren't even contacted at all!
--
here's an analogy:
This year, Smith (a basketball player) made 80% of the shots that he attempted, an exceptionally high percentage for a player in Smith's league. However, this rate does not show that Smith is an exceptional shooter, because the best shooters take many shots from risky, lower-percentage locations 20 or more feet away from the basket. Instead, Smith's high shooting percentage simply shows that he takes most of his shots from locations very close to the basket.
choice (a), in this analogy, is "Smith's shooting percentage more than 20 feet away from the basket is just as low as other players' percentage from that far away." see how this helps the argument?
choice (c) is "Very few of the baskets scored by Smith's team from locations close to the basket were shot by Smith himself." see how this shows that Smith is actually a great shooter, thereby helping the argument?
Kindly clarify
GMAT/MBA Expert
-
lunarpower
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 3380
- Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 am
- Thanked: 2256 times
- Followed by:1535 members
- GMAT Score:800
"as frequently as" just indicates the same frequency -- but, in the original problem, the comparison is made with a group that has been identified, in context, as "less-likely prospects". therefore, we know that a low frequency is indicated.sandy217 wrote:In second example it is clearly stated "AS LOW AS" but in question given choice A says "As frequently as" other college fund raisers. Are we assuming other college fund raisers perform badly. or When you say "As frequently As" , does it indicate LOW.?
Ron has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.
--
Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi
--
Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.
Yves Saint-Laurent
--
Learn more about ron
--
Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi
--
Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.
Yves Saint-Laurent
--
Learn more about ron
GMAT/MBA Expert
-
lunarpower
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 3380
- Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 am
- Thanked: 2256 times
- Followed by:1535 members
- GMAT Score:800
"out of scope" is not cause for elimination on strengthen/weaken problems.what? wrote:isn't C just out of scope? The passage clearly states "80 percent of the potential donors they contacted" .. so what the people who were not contacted is pretty much out of scope, isn't it?
in fact, the correct answer to a strengthen/weaken problem MUST be outside the scope of the problem, in at least some way ... because you can't strengthen or weaken an argument without bringing in additional information.
--
there are other CR problem types on which "out of scope" is sufficient cause for elimination, but strengthen/weaken is not one of those types.
Ron has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.
--
Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi
--
Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.
Yves Saint-Laurent
--
Learn more about ron
--
Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi
--
Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.
Yves Saint-Laurent
--
Learn more about ron
thanks for reminding me that "out of scope" is not a cause for elimination in strengthen/ weaken problems. i know this and looking back i should have come up with a better explanation for eliminating C. As you said, choice C actually works against the argument. I did choose A as my answer, but it was more due to POE.
B. New donor's average size larger, but still no information on what part of overall. Example: 90 old donors, 10 new donors. The 10 new donors this year gave $110 vs $100 last year. But we have no idea what part of the over all donations this is.
D. Majority from who had never given before. means >50%.We are trying to say that they did not contact enough new people, this would work against the argument.
E Pretty much same as D.
Please feel free to point out any errors in my elimination process.
Thank you.
B. New donor's average size larger, but still no information on what part of overall. Example: 90 old donors, 10 new donors. The 10 new donors this year gave $110 vs $100 last year. But we have no idea what part of the over all donations this is.
D. Majority from who had never given before. means >50%.We are trying to say that they did not contact enough new people, this would work against the argument.
E Pretty much same as D.
Please feel free to point out any errors in my elimination process.
Thank you.
GMAT/MBA Expert
-
lunarpower
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 3380
- Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 am
- Thanked: 2256 times
- Followed by:1535 members
- GMAT Score:800
more simply: the argument only cares about percent success rates, i.e., the only thing that matters is the distinction between "made a donation" (= success) and "didn't make a donation" (= failure).what? wrote: B. New donor's average size larger, but still no information on what part of overall. Example: 90 old donors, 10 new donors. The 10 new donors this year gave $110 vs $100 last year. But we have no idea what part of the over all donations this is.
dollar amounts are irrelevant to this distinction.
(d) yeah.D. Majority from who had never given before. means >50%.We are trying to say that they did not contact enough new people, this would work against the argument.
E Pretty much same as D.
(e) not really the same -- it says the same kind of thing that (d) says, but, again, talks about dollar values rather than about donation vs. no donation. therefore, this answer choice is irrelevant for exactly the same reason as in (b).
Ron has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.
--
Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi
--
Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.
Yves Saint-Laurent
--
Learn more about ron
--
Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi
--
Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.
Yves Saint-Laurent
--
Learn more about ron
In response to basketball question:
Question at hand-
Which of the following statements, if true, provides additional support for the argument?
The Argument:
- Smith's high shooting percentage simply shows that he takes most of his shots from locations very close to the basket.
Choice (a)correct
- Smiths shooting percentage more than 20 feet away from the basket is just as low as other's
(which means that his close range shots must have been higher in order to average out to an "exceptionally high" rate of 80%)
Choice (b) incorrect
- Very few of the baskets scored by Smiths team from locations close to the basket were shot by Smith himself"
(which means he shot most of his shots from far away and made them to allow an the high average of 80% therefore stating he IS an exceptional shooter which goes against the statement)
Question at hand-
Which of the following statements, if true, provides additional support for the argument?
The Argument:
- Smith's high shooting percentage simply shows that he takes most of his shots from locations very close to the basket.
Choice (a)correct
- Smiths shooting percentage more than 20 feet away from the basket is just as low as other's
(which means that his close range shots must have been higher in order to average out to an "exceptionally high" rate of 80%)
Choice (b) incorrect
- Very few of the baskets scored by Smiths team from locations close to the basket were shot by Smith himself"
(which means he shot most of his shots from far away and made them to allow an the high average of 80% therefore stating he IS an exceptional shooter which goes against the statement)
