Smithtown

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]

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.

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.

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