Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

It is currently 23 Apr 2014, 06:37

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
Verbal Forum Moderator
Verbal Forum Moderator
User avatar
Status: Flying over the cloud!
Joined: 16 Aug 2011
Posts: 787
Location: Viet Nam
Concentration: International Business, Finance
GPA: 3.07
Followers: 27

Kudos [?]: 137 [0], given: 36

GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink] New post 10 Dec 2011, 14:07
The correct choice is A. It reflect the effort of fund raisers. Choice C make sense that the fund raisers in this school do not do anything to prove their efforts. So, C is wrong
_________________

Rules for posting in verbal gmat forum, read it before posting anything in verbal forum
Giving me + 1 kudos if my post is valuable with you :)

Director
Director
Joined: 28 Jul 2011
Posts: 588
Location: United States
Concentration: International Business, General Management
GPA: 3.86
WE: Accounting (Commercial Banking)
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 30 [0], given: 16

GMAT Tests User
Re: Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink] New post 12 Dec 2011, 03:47
Its C
_________________

+1 Kudos If found helpful..

Manager
Manager
Status: Taking heavily leveraged but calculated risks at all times
Joined: 04 Apr 2010
Posts: 187
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Finance
Schools: HBS '15, Stanford '15
GMAT Date: 01-31-2012
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 27 [0], given: 12

Re: Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink] New post 24 Dec 2011, 17:33
Somehow this one's explanation has always dodged my understanding
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 25 Nov 2011
Posts: 261
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, General Management
GPA: 3.95
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 31 [0], given: 20

Re: Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink] New post 19 Jan 2012, 16:53
I agree answer should be A, but it is a vague and weak answer.

Given that B, D & E weaken the argument and C is irrelevant, A emerges as the answer.
_________________

-------------------------
-Aravind Chembeti

Intern
Intern
Joined: 17 Jan 2012
Posts: 8
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0

Re: Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink] New post 22 Jan 2012, 20:40
By POE, it must be A
Manager
Manager
Status: I will not stop until i realise my goal which is my dream too
Joined: 25 Feb 2010
Posts: 236
Schools: Johnson '15
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 19 [0], given: 16

GMAT Tests User
Re: Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink] New post 02 Apr 2012, 05:08
Anasthaesium wrote:
Somehow this one's explanation has always dodged my understanding



same with me...i felt the answer is C based on my understanding, but the official answer is A...so i dont know how to understand this problem
_________________

Regards,
Harsha

Note: Give me kudos if my approach is right , else help me understand where i am missing.. I want to bell the GMAT Cat ;)

Satyameva Jayate - Truth alone triumphs

Manager
Manager
Joined: 10 Jan 2011
Posts: 245
Location: India
GMAT Date: 07-16-2012
GPA: 3.4
WE: Consulting (Consulting)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 25

Reviews Badge
Re: Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink] New post 02 Apr 2012, 23:30
drdas 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 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.


Option A is irrelevant as it compares donors from other universities to Smithtown’s university.
Option B is also irrelevant as average size of the donation does not affect the conclusion.
option C strengthens the conclusion as donors whom the contact is not made is making donation then measuring success based on conversion of these donors is wrong. --- correct answer
option D we cannot compare amount of donation with no of donations. This statement is either irrelevant or indirectly weakens the conclusion.
option E again the amount of money and no of donations should not be compared.... irrelevant


I am not sure why OA is A.... Please enlighten me
_________________

-------Analyze why option A in SC wrong-------

Manager
Manager
Joined: 28 Apr 2011
Posts: 196
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 6

Re: Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink] New post 03 Apr 2012, 02:41
IanStewart +1 for you........

Indeed A is answer now......
1 KUDOS received
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 08 Jun 2010
Posts: 398
Location: United States
Concentration: General Management, Finance
GMAT 1: 680 Q50 V32
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 50 [1] , given: 13

GMAT Tests User
Re: Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink] New post 03 Apr 2012, 19:43
1
This post received
KUDOS
This is a tough question. Because it forces you to take a certain viewpoint:

Look at the problem from the aspect of canvassing:-
(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.
So, same as other unis with new fund raisers – Canvassing was not done? Because canvassing should indicate higher new folks.
(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.
New fund raiser more funding per donor – Irrelevant to canvassing.
(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.
New donor donated without any contact. – relates to canvassing but not relevant to 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.
Supports canvassing theory and says that canvassing worked, but doesn’t support the theory that canvassing was insufficient. So, weakens the argument.
(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.
Supports canvassing theory and says that canvassing worked, but doesn’t support the theory that canvassing was insufficient. So, weakens the argument.
Intern
Intern
Joined: 15 Sep 2011
Posts: 17
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 6

Re: Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink] New post 13 Apr 2012, 12:24
I enjoy the communities effort to democratically elect the answer. It seems the majority either voted for A or C. My contribution to this problem would point out that A says nothing about the canvassing efforts, which is the main argument. The main argument states that the high success rate shows insufficient canvassing efforts, even though 80% of contacted donors donated.

A) points out that the success rate of Smithtowns fund-raisers is about as good as everyone elses. (However, we are supposed to find that they did a bad job)
C) points out that the majority of the donations came from donors that previously had donated but weren't even contacted. (Now, if Georgetown fund-raisers received money from 80% of the donors they contacted - and still got more of their donations from people that had previously donated without being contacted - can only mean that they didn't even contact donors that previously donated - meaning they were REALLY bad fundraisers. As it is stated in the stem, good fundraisers constantly try less likely prospects in an effort to expand the donor base. Bad ones don't do this and instead just focus on the low hanging fruit offered by previous donors. In C), the fundraisers didn't even do that - which clearly shows insufficient canvassing efforts.)

Just food for thought.
Intern
Intern
Joined: 17 May 2012
Posts: 17
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 2

Re: Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink] New post 05 Jun 2012, 09:37
certainly a 700 level question. Great explanation from Ian!
Manager
Manager
Joined: 02 Jan 2011
Posts: 201
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 31 [0], given: 22

GMAT Tests User
Re: Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink] New post 06 Jun 2012, 01:56
B, D and E weeken the conclusion.

In case of C, it is stated that many past donors have donated without being contacted by the fund raisers. This means more fund came from new donor base. This actually strengthens the fund raisers being effective.

A is the only possible choice.
Manager
Manager
Joined: 31 Mar 2010
Posts: 139
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 52 [0], given: 38

Re: Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink] New post 06 Jun 2012, 05:15
Whats the conclusion here?

How does A relate to it?

Isnt c Obvious?
_________________

Push +1 kudos button please, if you like my post

1 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
Joined: 21 Jan 2012
Posts: 5
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 1 [1] , given: 6

Re: Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink] New post 22 Nov 2012, 15:31
1
This post received
KUDOS
nishtil wrote:
drdas 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 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.


Option A is irrelevant as it compares donors from other universities to Smithtown’s university.
Option B is also irrelevant as average size of the donation does not affect the conclusion.
option C strengthens the conclusion as donors whom the contact is not made is making donation then measuring success based on conversion of these donors is wrong. --- correct answer
option D we cannot compare amount of donation with no of donations. This statement is either irrelevant or indirectly weakens the conclusion.
option E again the amount of money and no of donations should not be compared.... irrelevant


I am not sure why OA is A.... Please enlighten me




I had the same thought process as you. But then I re-read the question. Here's my take on this :

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.

According to the author's definition, a "good fund-raiser" has the following characteristics :
- constantly try less-likely prospects
- may not have exceptionally high success rate

Hence only choice A fits gives any additional info as to why HE THINKS that the fund raisers did not do a good job. This fits the bill of any answer choice that give additional info that would strengthen the argument/conclusion.
I think answer choice A appeals to the common sense aspect our thinking and I have seen that these answer choices are usually a trap. (especially for must-be true questions)

Hope that helps
Verbal Forum Moderator
Verbal Forum Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 15 Jun 2012
Posts: 983
Location: United States
Followers: 93

Kudos [?]: 938 [0], given: 116

Premium Member
Re: Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink] New post 03 Apr 2013, 01:12
Got this question right. Sorry, but I don't think this one is at 700 level.
_________________

Please +1 KUDO if my post helps. Thank you.

"Designing cars consumes you; it has a hold on your spirit which is incredibly powerful. It's not something you can do part time, you have do it with all your heart and soul or you're going to get it wrong."

Chris Bangle - Former BMV Chief of Design.

Intern
Intern
Joined: 09 Dec 2010
Posts: 1
Schools: MIT, LBS, Chicago, UCLA
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 1

Re: Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink] New post 03 Apr 2013, 04:55
C. Only C relates directly to the question.
Intern
Intern
Joined: 04 Apr 2013
Posts: 15
Concentration: Finance, Economics
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0

Re: Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink] New post 05 Apr 2013, 05:31
C is correct.

Question is aimed at determining whether or not the fund raisers are 'good fundraisers' or not... nothing else. By the question, a 'good fundraiser' is one who seeks to tap less-likely prospects and people who have not donated before thus giving a lower overall success rate.

Only answer 'C' addresses this as it states that most of the donations came from people who had donated previously, as they are the most likely to donate again. The fundraisers at Smithtown did not even contact these people, thus showing that the fundraisers were 'not good'.

Answer A us about frequency compared to other universities (??), Answer B is about 'average size of donations' (??), Answer D states that majority where from donors who never gave before which goes against the argument and does not support it, and Answer E is again, going against the argument not supporting it.

BOOM
Intern
Intern
Joined: 10 Apr 2013
Posts: 2
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0

Re: Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink] New post 10 Apr 2013, 13:30
It cannot be "C". the 80% success rate is based on donators they have contacted. Since "C" states that "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" then the 80% success rate has to come from first time donators which seriously weakens the argument.

By opposition, "A" implies that the fund raisers haven't been particularly successful in getting money from first time donators as they succeeded only "as frequently as were fund-raisers for other universities". In this case, the 80% success rate must come from people who had previously donated, thus strengthening the argument.

hope this helps
Director
Director
Joined: 29 Nov 2012
Posts: 936
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 160 [0], given: 543

Re: Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink] New post 27 Jul 2013, 07:34
What is the OA for this one? on MGMAT forums its A over here its C.. Can someone explain?
_________________

Click +1 Kudos if my post helped...

Amazing Free video explanation for all Quant questions from OG 13 and much more http://www.gmatquantum.com/og13th/

GMAT Prep software What if scenarios gmat-prep-software-analysis-and-what-if-scenarios-146146.html

Manager
Manager
Status: Looking to improve
Joined: 15 Jan 2013
Posts: 177
GMAT 1: 530 Q43 V20
GMAT 2: 560 Q42 V25
GMAT 3: 650 Q48 V31
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 34 [0], given: 65

Re: Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink] New post 27 Jul 2013, 08:41
Fozzy,

OA is A

C is out-of scope because of the below highlighted phrase

A clearly says that the donations came from previous donors who did few frequent donations in the past, which clearly shows that the fundraisers did not contact potential new donors.

Quote:
(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.


Hope this helps.
_________________

KUDOS is a way to say Thank You

Re: Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting   [#permalink] 27 Jul 2013, 08:41
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
New posts 1 Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting chunjuwu 9 19 Feb 2005, 23:35
New posts i succeeded in GMAT test yankevi 4 31 Jul 2008, 07:53
New posts Chances of getting into a top university with GRE akoduri 5 05 May 2011, 11:29
New posts 1 Smithtown University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting eybrj2 4 12 Dec 2011, 00:23
New posts Will I get a good university? lenalenakasi 1 26 Dec 2013, 02:47
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9    Next  [ 162 posts ] 



GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.