Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) - Page 9
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 23 Jan 2017, 22:16

### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 02 Mar 2014
Posts: 1
Followers: 0

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

Re: Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Mar 2014, 15:59
Goal: Find support for the argument
Argument: The success rate is not an indication that the fund-raisers are doing their best effort. Previous donors more likely to donate again.
Choices:
A-Proves that fund-raisers are contacting new prospects. WRONG.
B-New donors outnumbered previous donors thru fund raisers' effort. WRONG.
C-Donations from previous donors flow in without fund-raisers' effort. CORRECT.
D-New donors thru fund-raisers' effort. WRONG.
E-More than half of donation from new donors. WRONG.

*Wrong- because it does not SUPPORT the argument.
*Correct- supports the argument.

Just my two cents.
Manager
Joined: 20 Dec 2013
Posts: 104
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 68 [0], given: 46

Re: Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Mar 2014, 13:14
razrulz wrote:
drdas wrote:
Smithtown Universityâ€™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 Universityâ€™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 contridicts the premisis
B. This year the average size of the donations to Smithtown University from new donors when the universityâ€™s fund-raisers had contacted was larger than the average size of donations from donors who had given to the university before. - it says new doners - same reason as A
C. This year most of the donations that came to Smithtown University from people who had previously donated to it were made without the universityâ€™s fund-raisers having made any contact with the donors. - this reasons the without canvassing theory said in the premises so this is right !
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. - same as A
E. More than half of the money raised by Smithtown Universityâ€™s fund-raisers came from donors who had never previously donated to the university. - different words but same meaning as D

Can anyone share the source of this problem ?
I think this can not come in GMAT as it is because -
Options B,C,D Can Not be the answer there, as B,C,D options limits the scope of this argument to one year/ this year !!
The problem statement shared says Nothing about one year/ this year.
Such cope shift allows that given options can be kicked out.

Any Experts !!
_________________

Best
MKS
Appreciate it with Kudos !!

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10543
Followers: 920

Kudos [?]: 204 [0], given: 0

Re: Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Apr 2015, 05:31
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
Intern
Joined: 27 Aug 2014
Posts: 3
Location: Australia
WE: Engineering (Energy and Utilities)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 24

Re: Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Apr 2015, 17:47
For me its C . C is the only one which supports the argument. A does the opposite
Senior Manager
Joined: 10 Mar 2013
Posts: 290
GMAT 1: 620 Q44 V31
GMAT 2: 690 Q47 V37
GMAT 3: 610 Q47 V28
GMAT 4: 700 Q50 V34
GMAT 5: 700 Q49 V36
GMAT 6: 690 Q48 V35
GMAT 7: 750 Q49 V42
GMAT 8: 730 Q50 V39
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 100 [1] , given: 2405

Re: Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 May 2015, 21:04
1
KUDOS
The answer is A not C.
C weakens the argument in a sly manner, but once you see it, the question becomes easier.
C states that most old donors gave money to the university without the university contacting them. This weakens the argument of the fund-raisers not looking for new donors, because it would then imply that a good portion of the 80% of donors contacted were new donors.

A states that the school performed just as well as other schools did when it came to expanding its donor base; this implies that they didn't do an outstanding job as described in the argument; this strengthens the argument albeit weakly, but it is the BEST answer

B: Wrong; doesn't strengthen the argument
DE: Wrong; weaken the argument
Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 05 Nov 2012
Posts: 544
Concentration: Technology, Other
GMAT 1: 0 Q47 V29
Followers: 34

Kudos [?]: 391 [0], given: 606

Re: Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Jul 2015, 01:25
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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.

Crux here is:
SU fund raiser's high success rate doesn't show that they r doing good job. High success rate shows insufficient effort.

One way to strengthen the conclusion is by comparing SU fund raiser performance with others.

A Vs C. As rest of the options are more on weakener line.

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.
>> SU and non SU students were equally successful in influencing the first time donors. This means both r equally good.

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.
>> This year 'most of the donation from people who had previously donated to Univ.' were made without the University's fund-raisers having made any contact with the donors.
Now this doesn't help in weakening or strengthening the argument. Argument is based upon the potential donor who were contacted. Donors who were not contacted represents different set.

_________________

--------------------------------------------------------
Regards

BSchool Forum Moderator
Joined: 01 Oct 2009
Posts: 602
GMAT 1: 530 Q47 V17
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V36
Followers: 37

Kudos [?]: 307 [0], given: 410

Re: Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Aug 2015, 22:19
Im able to eliminate Option C here , but im still unable to understand how option A strengthens the argument.

option A says: SU fund-raisers were equally successful as other college fund raisers are.

Im unable to understand how can this support "SU fund-raisers are not good fund raisers " or "SU fund-raisers had insufficient canvassing effort.".

Nothing is mentioned about other College Fund Raisers. I mean what if other Fund Raisers are really "Good fund raisers" : they always tried to contact more first time Fund Raisers.
Manager
Status: A mind once opened never loses..!
Joined: 05 Mar 2015
Posts: 230
Location: India
MISSION : 800
WE: Design (Manufacturing)
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 85 [0], given: 259

Re: Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Oct 2015, 09:57
>Two ways to look at option "C"
1. Option "C" is out of the leagues as it does not suggest about the efforts of the fund raisers. It's good that donations were received but it tells nothing about the efforts of the fun raisers.

OR

2. What option "C" suggests is that the fundraisers of the Smithtown University are so good at work that they didn't even need to talk to the previous donors as these donors by themselves donated this time, without even contacting. This weakens instead of strengthening.

Option "A"
This option tells that fund raisers at Smithtown University are equally successful as are fund-raisers at other schools. This implies that if everything is equal everywhere and 80% of the donations came without contacting anyone then the effort made was less. Clearly supporting the conclusion.
_________________

Thank you

+KUDOS

> I CAN, I WILL <

Intern
Joined: 05 Dec 2014
Posts: 23
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
GMAT 1: 610 Q50 V23
GPA: 3.82
WE: Corporate Finance (Consulting)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 11 [1] , given: 23

Re: Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Oct 2015, 22:45
1
KUDOS
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.

[Reveal] Spoiler: Why ?
Option C is out of scope: refer other forums : http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/cr- ... t8037.html

As e-gmat says. Understanding the prompt is very important and considerable time must be spent on it even in the exam instead of rushing through the choices.

What the passage says: FR have got funds from 80% of the people they contacted. ---> But this isnt a sign of their success (why?) (Conclusion) ---> (because) most people who donate have donated before and are past donors as well who don't need to motivated to donate ---> Job of FR is to find more potential 1st time donors and make them donate. ---> Clearly they are failing.

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.First keep this one, it looks/sounds weird. So keep it. Dont leave it cause it sounds weird.

(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.if the donations from new donors were larger, then conclusion fails. Forgo B

(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. If the FR did not even contact past donors, then clearly it only contacted new potential donors, and got a 80% donation rate from them. So this again weakens conclusion

(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. Again clearly, weakens conclusion

(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. which means 50% of the (80% people donated) were 1st time donors. So obviously conclusion weakened.

The only option left is A. which did sound weird at first, But IS the right answer. It sounds weird at first, since we don't know about success rate/frequency of "other FR". But it is probably lining some sort of similarity here, that even the "other FR" group has failed. By POE, this is the answer. though weird. go for it.
Manager
Status: The best is yet to come.....
Joined: 10 Mar 2013
Posts: 84
GMAT 1: 610 Q47 V27
GRE 1: 304 Q156 V148
GPA: 3.66
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 24 [0], given: 95

Re: Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Nov 2015, 03:56
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.

[Reveal] Spoiler: Why ?
Option C is out of scope: refer other forums : http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/cr- ... t8037.html

C. The stem says 80% of those contacted made donations. Out of this 80%, most of the donation came from without canvassing, let it be 90%. So, without canvassing donation came 90% of 80%, i.e. 72% of the total donation. Rest 28% of total donation came through canvassing. So, it weakens the argument.
_________________

Getting kudos is encouraging.
Giving kudos is a way of saying thanks
.

Hasan Mahmud

Manager
Joined: 12 Aug 2015
Posts: 130
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GMAT 1: 690 Q50 V32
GPA: 3.38
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 76

Re: Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Nov 2016, 05:39
Dear E-GMAT, Magoosh, mikemcgarry, ManhattanGMATBlog, EMPOWERgmatRichC, Daagh,
pls help with the solutions.

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.

[Reveal] Spoiler: Why ?
Option C is out of scope: refer other forums : http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/cr- ... t8037.html
Manager
Joined: 21 Jul 2016
Posts: 60
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Operations
WE: Other (Computer Software)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 49

Re: Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Nov 2016, 09:41

Conclusion: Inspite of getting 80% of people (contacted by fundraisers) to pay or donate, the effort is not good.

Premise: Good fundraisers try to expand new donor base...

Possible Assumptions:

1 - Most of the 80% people, who donated, includes most likely donators or people who have donated previously.
2 - Fundraisers did not try to build new donor base (who are less likely to donate)

B - Avg size of Funds from new donors > Avg size of duns from repeat donors.....A weakener (As, fundraisers did build new donor base and got larger ticket sizes)
C - Most of funding received from donors (old or repeat ones) are the ones who were never contacted. It means, people who were contacted, most include new donors. Again, a weakener
D - Majority of donations was received from people who had never given before...A weakener
E - More than half of money has been raised from new donors. Again, a weakener

A speaks of fundraisers having contacted those donors, who were oldies, but, they donated less frequently in comparison to frequency of donation made to an other university (A 2nd university other than Smithtown University)
Verbal Expert
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 2380
Location: Germany
Schools: HHL Leipzig
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
Followers: 363

Kudos [?]: 1515 [0], given: 21

Re: Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Dec 2016, 02:11
The OA is correct and explanations provided in the thread appear sufficient. If there are any specific questions, please post them here and then click again on the "Request Expert Reply" button - users are requested not to click the button without posting their queries.
Re: Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting   [#permalink] 01 Dec 2016, 02:11

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   [ 173 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
16 #Top150 CR: Smithtown University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting 10 11 Dec 2015, 21:01
1 The Smithtown Theatre, which stages old plays, has announced an expans 2 15 Dec 2014, 08:02
7 Smithtown University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting 5 12 Dec 2011, 00:23
1 High school students who feel that they are not succeeding 16 16 Mar 2007, 08:01
Last year, 1,200 Smithtown residents who work in hospitals 6 28 Feb 2007, 09:18
Display posts from previous: Sort by