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

It is currently 23 Oct 2014, 05:22

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:
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 06 Jul 2004
Posts: 474
Location: united states
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 0

Re: Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink] New post 14 May 2007, 22:20
S11-Q14. 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.

C is negated by the following :

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.

if the large chunk of the donation is coming from people who have donated in the past with being contacted, that means that the campaigners were "good fund-raisers", in that they only approached those people who have never donated before. That is a good campaign.

A is the right answer in my opinion.

Smithtown university campaigners got more "from people who have never donated in the past" than the other university campaigners did. This means that they contacted less such people than the other university campaigners did. That means they ran a bad campaign.

since we don't have an OA, it would be nice if more people chime in with their explanations.
_________________

for every person who doesn't try because he is
afraid of loosing , there is another person who
keeps making mistakes and succeeds..

Director
Director
User avatar
Affiliations: FRM Charter holder
Joined: 02 Dec 2006
Posts: 736
Schools: Stanford, Chicago Booth, Babson College
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 23 [0], given: 4

Re: Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink] New post 15 May 2007, 01:49
shoonya wrote:
S11-Q14. 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.

C is negated by the following :

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.

if the large chunk of the donation is coming from people who have donated in the past with being contacted, that means that the campaigners were "good fund-raisers", in that they only approached those people who have never donated before. That is a good campaign.

A is the right answer in my opinion.

Smithtown university campaigners got more "from people who have never donated in the past" than the other university campaigners did. This means that they contacted less such people than the other university campaigners did. That means they ran a bad campaign.

since we don't have an OA, it would be nice if more people chime in with their explanations.


A is weakening the above conclusion I guess.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 16 Apr 2007
Posts: 28
Followers: 0

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

Re: Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink] New post 15 May 2007, 22:24
dvtohir wrote:
Could you try the problem below? Please, explain your answer.
(I don't have the OA)

S11-Q14. 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.


Quote:
80 percent of the potential donors they contacted.

C cannot be the right answer because if it were true that would mean that 80% of the contributions came from new donors as opposed to regular ones. Because according to C the regular ones weren't contacted.

Can anyone provide a better explanation???? I am very confused
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Posts: 9
Followers: 0

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

Re: Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink] New post 11 Jun 2007, 13:12
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.

Which is correct answer A or C? and why?
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Posts: 649
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 51 [0], given: 0

Re: Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink] New post 11 Jun 2007, 13:22
I believe C is the right answer.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 23 Dec 2006
Posts: 136
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 0

Re: Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink] New post 11 Jun 2007, 13:58
Ditto, C. A weakens the argument by attempting to equate Smithtown's achievements with other universities, when in fact we are arguing for a poor canvassing effort. C strengthens the argument by demonstrating that the donation drive was poorly performed.
Current Student
avatar
Joined: 29 Apr 2007
Posts: 24
Concentration: Finance
GMAT 1: 760 Q48 V45
GPA: 3.71
Followers: 1

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

Re: Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink] New post 11 Jun 2007, 15:59
The blurb basically says that the Smithtown fund-raisers got money from 80% of the donors they contacted. The blurb also says that previous donors are most likely to have donated in the past.

In order to achieve 80% donation rate, the number of non-previous donors would have to be much greater than usual OR the fundraisers must have only contacted a few of them. If we choose option A, this means that Smithtown fundraisers were about as successful as other towns in collecting money from non-previous donors (AKA, about the same rate).

Option A proves that Smithtown fundraisers were no more successful with non-previous donors and therefore must have contacted fewer of them. This provides support for the argument that the high success rate shows insufficient canvassing effort.
GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
User avatar
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 5095
Location: Singapore
Followers: 19

Kudos [?]: 155 [0], given: 0

Re: Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink] New post 11 Jun 2007, 18:08
C makes a stronger case. It says that the fund-raisers were redundant since the donations came in freely without any canvassing.
Current Student
avatar
Joined: 29 Apr 2007
Posts: 24
Concentration: Finance
GMAT 1: 760 Q48 V45
GPA: 3.71
Followers: 1

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

Re: Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink] New post 11 Jun 2007, 19:02
Quote:
The high success rate shows insufficient canvassing effort.

Which of the following, if true, provides more support for the argument?


While C certainly suggests that the fundraisers did not significantly impact the overall donation amount, A calls into question their level of effort.

Am I focusing on the wrong point?
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 23 Dec 2006
Posts: 136
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 0

Re: Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink] New post 11 Jun 2007, 19:16
Tovin wrote:
Quote:
The high success rate shows insufficient canvassing effort.

Which of the following, if true, provides more support for the argument?


While C certainly suggests that the fundraisers did not significantly impact the overall donation amount, A calls into question their level of effort.

Am I focusing on the wrong point?
A says that they performed comparably with other schools; we wish to argue that Smithtown's efforts were inferior to other schools. C does this better.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 28 Feb 2007
Posts: 308
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 28 [0], given: 0

Re: Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink] New post 11 Jul 2007, 23:57
Set2-14. 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.

with explanation plz. Thanx
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 04 Jun 2007
Posts: 349
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 0

Re: Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink] New post 12 Jul 2007, 00:11
UMB wrote:
Set2-14. 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.

with explanation plz. Thanx


By POE, C for me. All the other statements seem to weaken the argument.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 28 Feb 2007
Posts: 35
Followers: 1

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

Re: Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink] New post 12 Jul 2007, 03:37
C for me too.. Can somebody confirm the OA?
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 12 Apr 2007
Posts: 171
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 0

Re: Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink] New post 12 Jul 2007, 05:16
I'd choose A...

Doesn't C tend to weaken the argument by saying taht the 80% success rate was from new donors only?
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 28 Feb 2007
Posts: 308
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 28 [0], given: 0

Re: Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink] New post 13 Jul 2007, 09:06
A vs C. RA is C but There is good explanation for A.

It seems A is really correct one. ANY IDEA?

Here is explanation by Archangel and Chinese:

oB Clearly weakens the argument.
oD Weakens.
oC If most of the donations by previous donors were unsolicited, then the 80% figure in the argument must be largely comprised of first-time donors. If that is the case, then the fundraisers did, in fact, do a good job (relative to other university fund-raisers), which refutes the argument.
oE Weakens
ANSWER: A If the fund-raisers had average success in securing donations from donors who had never supported Smithtown previously, and that rate of success for that population of donors is generally not so good (which the argument implies), then the 80% figure must be largely comprised of previous donors, which supports the contention of the argument. This is Question 29 in Sets 10 and 19. Be advised that the reference answer in the sets is C. However, I can not see how Choice C does anything other than weaken the argument. I say it's wrong.

By popular demand, I'm going to try to make the case for A one more time. Here is the argument, re-written with A included as a premise. It bolsters one of the arguments assumptions and clearly strengthens the argument:

--Smithtown University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations from 80 percent of the potential donors they contacted. 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. However, recent information reveals that Smithtown’s fund-raisers had merely average success in receiving donations from contacts with potential donors who had never donated before. Therefore, this exceptionally high relative success rate actually indicates that they were doing an average job, at best, and reflects insufficient canvassing effort.--
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 06 Jul 2004
Posts: 474
Location: united states
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 0

Re: Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink] New post 13 Jul 2007, 09:27
UMB wrote:
Set2-14. 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.

with explanation plz. Thanx


Well, A can't be the answer. Just because the school did equally good as the others doesn't mean that they all did a good job in canvassing. They all might have done equally bad.
_________________

for every person who doesn't try because he is
afraid of loosing , there is another person who
keeps making mistakes and succeeds..

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 17 May 2007
Posts: 179
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 0

Re: Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink] New post 13 Jul 2007, 09:38
C supports the stimulus. C is the correct answer.
VP
VP
avatar
Joined: 22 Nov 2007
Posts: 1102
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 135 [0], given: 0

Re: Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink] New post 06 Jan 2008, 09:05
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.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Posts: 120
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 17 [0], given: 0

Re: Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink] New post 06 Jan 2008, 11:18
The argument concludes that there has been a lack of canvassing effort. evidence is high success rate.

marcodonzelli 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. Irrelevant - the argument does not do any comparison with other universities' fund raisers.
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.This contradicts the argument as it says that this year new donors (when contacted by fund raisers) donated more than repeating donors.
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.Supports the argument. "without any contact from fund raisers" means lack of canvassing.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 07 Sep 2007
Posts: 80
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 0

Re: Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink] New post 06 Jan 2008, 13:22
c is the correct answer. if past doner comes to university with out even being contact then the auther's point is true, the high success rate shows insufficient canvassing effort.
Re: Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting   [#permalink] 06 Jan 2008, 13:22
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
Will I get a good university? lenalenakasi 1 26 Dec 2013, 02:47
2 Smithtown University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting eybrj2 4 12 Dec 2011, 00:23
Chances of getting into a top university with GRE akoduri 5 05 May 2011, 11:29
i succeeded in GMAT test yankevi 4 31 Jul 2008, 07:53
1 Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting chunjuwu 9 19 Feb 2005, 23:35
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®.