Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) - Page 2
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 24 Jan 2017, 08:20

# LIVE NOW:

How to Get Off the MBA Waitlist: YouTube Live with Personal MBA Coach  |  Click Here to Join the Session

### 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

Senior Manager
Joined: 06 Jul 2004
Posts: 473
Location: united states
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 105 [0], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

14 May 2007, 22:20
S11-Q14. 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.
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.
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.
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 Universityâ€™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
Affiliations: FRM Charter holder
Joined: 02 Dec 2006
Posts: 734
Schools: Stanford, Chicago Booth, Babson College
Followers: 16

Kudos [?]: 79 [0], given: 4

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

### Show Tags

15 May 2007, 01:49
shoonya wrote:
S11-Q14. 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.
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.
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.
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 Universityâ€™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
Joined: 16 Apr 2007
Posts: 28
Followers: 0

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

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

### Show Tags

15 May 2007, 22:24
dvtohir wrote:
(I don't have the OA)

S11-Q14. 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.
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.
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.
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 Universityâ€™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
Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Posts: 9
Followers: 0

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

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

### Show Tags

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
Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Posts: 647
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 290 [0], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

11 Jun 2007, 13:22
I believe C is the right answer.
Manager
Joined: 23 Dec 2006
Posts: 136
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 26 [0], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

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.
Intern
Joined: 29 Apr 2007
Posts: 24
Concentration: Finance
GMAT 1: 760 Q48 V45
GPA: 3.71
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 40 [0], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

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
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 5062
Location: Singapore
Followers: 30

Kudos [?]: 358 [0], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

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.
Intern
Joined: 29 Apr 2007
Posts: 24
Concentration: Finance
GMAT 1: 760 Q48 V45
GPA: 3.71
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 40 [0], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

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
Joined: 23 Dec 2006
Posts: 136
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 26 [0], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

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
Joined: 28 Feb 2007
Posts: 306
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 40 [0], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

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
Joined: 04 Jun 2007
Posts: 346
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

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
Joined: 28 Feb 2007
Posts: 35
Followers: 1

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

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

### Show Tags

12 Jul 2007, 03:37
C for me too.. Can somebody confirm the OA?
Manager
Joined: 12 Apr 2007
Posts: 170
Followers: 1

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

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

### Show Tags

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
Joined: 28 Feb 2007
Posts: 306
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 40 [0], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

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
Joined: 06 Jul 2004
Posts: 473
Location: united states
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 105 [0], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

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
Joined: 17 May 2007
Posts: 179
Followers: 1

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

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

### Show Tags

13 Jul 2007, 09:38
C supports the stimulus. C is the correct answer.
VP
Joined: 22 Nov 2007
Posts: 1092
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 489 [0], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

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
Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Posts: 120
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 60 [0], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

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
Joined: 07 Sep 2007
Posts: 80
Followers: 1

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

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

### Show Tags

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

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