Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) - Page 3
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 24 Jan 2017, 09:25

### 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

CEO
Joined: 29 Mar 2007
Posts: 2583
Followers: 19

Kudos [?]: 422 [0], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

06 Jan 2008, 14:36
A.Haung wrote:
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.

Thats good. I completely misread the CR
Manager
Joined: 21 Oct 2005
Posts: 99
Followers: 1

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

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

### Show Tags

07 Jan 2008, 04:16
C it is

A and B infacts weakens the author's argument
Intern
Joined: 11 Oct 2007
Posts: 38
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 32 [1] , given: 0

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

### Show Tags

01 Feb 2008, 17:30
1
KUDOS
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.
Senior Manager
Joined: 06 Jul 2006
Posts: 295
Location: SFO Bay Area
Schools: Berkeley Haas
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 61 [0], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

01 Feb 2008, 17:34
C.
_________________

-------------------------------------------------------------
When you come to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on.

SVP
Joined: 28 Dec 2005
Posts: 1575
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 148 [0], given: 2

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

### Show Tags

01 Feb 2008, 18:50
should be C
CEO
Joined: 29 Mar 2007
Posts: 2583
Followers: 19

Kudos [?]: 422 [0], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

02 Feb 2008, 19:58
ttram 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.

I go with C. I think this one has been posted b/f looks familiar.
Director
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
Posts: 793
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 157 [0], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

03 Feb 2008, 15:32
Conclusion: The high success rate shows insufficient canvassing effort. Any information that provides high fund raising is from old donors strengthens or supports this 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.[This weakens the argument – eliminate it]

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 weakens the argument – eliminate it]

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 strengthen the conclusion – hold it]

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.[This weaken the argument – eliminate it]

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.[Weakens the argument – eliminate it]

Manager
Joined: 07 Jan 2008
Posts: 114
Followers: 1

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

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

### Show Tags

05 Feb 2008, 13:48
IMO: B

Conclusion: High success rate shows inefficient canvassing.
support the conclusion: pick the choice that implies that current practices are not the best.

C is not correct because the it says that "...people who had previously donated to it were made without the university’s fund-raisers having made any contact with the donors..." therefore it implies that the university fundraisers probably did not contact them.

The passage says "fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations from 80 percent of the potential donors they contacted".

From these two statements two things become clear: first, old donors gave without getting contacted; second, fundraisers had success in getting funds from a lot of new donors.

If these two statements are true than the 'current process' is efficient.

Therefore, the only choice that supports the argument is B. It implies that fundraisers should have invested more resources in contacting new donors as the size of donation from these people was much bigger.

very tricky one...am I correct??

hanumayamma wrote:
Conclusion: The high success rate shows insufficient canvassing effort. Any information that provides high fund raising is from old donors strengthens or supports this 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.[This weakens the argument – eliminate it]

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 weakens the argument – eliminate it]

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 strengthen the conclusion – hold it]

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.[This weaken the argument – eliminate it]

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.[Weakens the argument – eliminate it]

Intern
Joined: 11 Oct 2007
Posts: 38
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 32 [0], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

05 Feb 2008, 14:55
The OA is A.
Director
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
Posts: 793
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 157 [0], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

06 Feb 2008, 12:34

In my first cut, I wrongly identified the conclusion. Here is my retake.

Conclusion is tricky. I think if we identify the conclusion, ninety percent of the problem resolved.
Conclusion: 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.

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.[Strengthens the argument and also showing canvassing effort - Hold it]

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 weakens the argument – eliminate it]

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.[Definitely not – Elimintge it]

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.[Enticing - This also strengthens the conclusion, but canvassing effort missing – eliminate it]

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.[ Enticing - This also strengthens the conclusion, but canvassing effort missing – eliminate it]

Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Jan 2008
Posts: 412
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 219 [4] , given: 0

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

### Show Tags

13 Jun 2008, 10:58
4
KUDOS
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
SVP
Joined: 30 Apr 2008
Posts: 1887
Location: Oklahoma City
Schools: Hard Knocks
Followers: 40

Kudos [?]: 571 [3] , given: 32

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

### Show Tags

13 Jun 2008, 11:16
3
KUDOS
I choose A. This is a great question lexis, thanks for posting +1. This is a question I would probably guess on after eliminating one or two choices. The logic takes longer than 2 minutes to really get through it.

lexis 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.
This statement shows the fund-raisers didn't do anything special. The argument calls for extra effort on the part of contacting people that have never previously donated. If they did nothing more than any other university did, then they are not doing enough to expand their donor base. The key in the argument made by the stem is "lack of extra effort". Only this answer also shows a lack of extra effort by the university.
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.
The answer has nothing to do with size because the stem deals with percentages. Size of donation is certainly a way to measure success, but is irrelevant in this scenario.
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.
The stem says 80% of those contacted made donations. If the statement made in C is true, then these donations cannot be part of the 80% success rate of donors contacted because these donors WERE NOT contacted. This doesn't help the argument be true, it actually weakens the argument.
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.
The argument in the stem is implying the reason for the 80% success is that the donations came from prior donors that are already more likely to donate to the school. This refutes that by saying a majority of the donations came from new donors, not old ones. This does not support the argument in the stem.
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
This also refutes the argument that old donors made the fund-raising efforts successful. I also don't see a correlation between the amount of money raised and the percentage of those contacted that donated. If this means that half the money rasied is from new donors because more were contacted and thus the donations from 80% of those contacted (being new donors) is more than half of the money raised, it goes against the argument made in the stem.

_________________

------------------------------------
J Allen Morris
**I'm pretty sure I'm right, but then again, I'm just a guy with his head up his a$$. GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings Last edited by jallenmorris on 19 Jun 2008, 08:46, edited 1 time in total. Manager Joined: 18 Aug 2006 Posts: 62 Location: Houston TX Followers: 1 Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 2 Re: Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink] ### Show Tags 13 Jun 2008, 12:59 I think C is the answer. The other 4 choices seem to weaken the argument _________________ haveaniceday SVP Joined: 30 Apr 2008 Posts: 1887 Location: Oklahoma City Schools: Hard Knocks Followers: 40 Kudos [?]: 571 [0], given: 32 Re: Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink] ### Show Tags 13 Jun 2008, 13:29 Please explain how C does NOT weaken the argument. chan_nhu78 wrote: I think C is the answer. The other 4 choices seem to weaken the argument _________________ ------------------------------------ J Allen Morris **I'm pretty sure I'm right, but then again, I'm just a guy with his head up his a$$.

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Manager
Joined: 01 May 2008
Posts: 114
Location: São Paulo
Followers: 1

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

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

### Show Tags

13 Jun 2008, 16:18
All the question seem to weaken the statement...

But I'd chose C here, because it's an indication that it's not necessary to contact a person who has already donated in the past.
Senior Manager
Joined: 19 Apr 2008
Posts: 320
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 78 [1] , given: 0

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

### Show Tags

13 Jun 2008, 16:58
1
KUDOS
jallenmorris wrote:
I choose A by POE. This is a great question lexis, thanks for posting +1. This is a question I would probably guess on after eliminating one or two choices. The logic takes longer than 2 minutes to really get through it.

lexis 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.
A by Process Of Elmination.
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.
The answer has nothing to do with size because the stem deals with percentages. Size of donation is certainly a way to measure success, but is irrelevant in this scenario.
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.
The stem says 80% of those contacted made donations. If the statement made in C is true, then these donations cannot be part of the 80% success rate of donors contacted because these donors WERE NOT contacted. This doesn't help the argument be true, it actually weakens the argument.
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.
The argument in the stem is implying the reason for the 80% success is that the donations came from prior donors that are already more likely to donate to the school. This refutes that by saying a majority of the donations came from new donors, not old ones. This does not support the argument in the stem.
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
This also refutes the argument that old donors made the fund-raising efforts successful. I also don't see a correlation between the amount of money raised and the percentage of those contacted that donated. If this means that half the money rasied is from new donors because more were contacted and thus the donations from 80% of those contacted (being new donors) is more than half of the money raised, it goes against the argument made in the stem.

I agree with A : Author says "good fund-raisers constantly try less-likely prospects in an effort to expand the donor base. The high success rate shows insufficient canvassing effort."

So Smithtown University’s fund-raisers did not try hard to expand their donor base to reach more donors which other universities did not succeed to reach .
SVP
Joined: 04 May 2006
Posts: 1926
Schools: CBS, Kellogg
Followers: 23

Kudos [?]: 1014 [0], given: 1

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

### Show Tags

13 Jun 2008, 17:52
lexis 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

1.If I see this in the real, I stuck! due to timed pressure and because C is phrased in the complicated way that you can not understand it right away. But C should be OA

2. If you see the flaw of this argument, you will catch what C means! The argument goes from a succeed-in rate, in the past, of collecting donations to conclude that this is not good job. And then raise some other reasons explained why it is not good job.

3. flaw of this argument is the author assume ,this year, the fund-raisers did not contact donators who are most likely to donate.
4. to support this assumption, you say, a few, if not at all, of donation this year comes from donators who are most likely to donate.

5. C say exactly the phrase I made above!

_________________
Manager
Joined: 12 May 2006
Posts: 185
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 57 [0], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

13 Jun 2008, 20:10
The lock is between A and C but C says that 50% of donors dint even contact the fund-raisers. It does suggest that the fund-raisers did not do a good job but it also contradicts the premise that they collected 80% of funds.

On the other hand A says that fund-raisers did as good jobs as fund-raisers from other college. Which means it cannot be classified as comparative good job.
SVP
Joined: 30 Apr 2008
Posts: 1887
Location: Oklahoma City
Schools: Hard Knocks
Followers: 40

Kudos [?]: 571 [0], given: 32

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

### Show Tags

14 Jun 2008, 05:51

grepro wrote:
The lock is between A and C but C says that 50% of donors dint even contact the fund-raisers. It does suggest that the fund-raisers did not do a good job but it also contradicts the premise that they collected 80% of funds.

On the other hand A says that fund-raisers did as good jobs as fund-raisers from other college. Which means it cannot be classified as comparative good job.

_________________

------------------------------------
J Allen Morris
**I'm pretty sure I'm right, but then again, I'm just a guy with his head up his a.

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Manager
Joined: 19 Aug 2007
Posts: 206
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 87 [0], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

18 Jun 2008, 14:55
lexis 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

C essentially says that they didnt put in any effort to get funding.
I eliminated A because the success off other universities fundraiser is irrelevant.

whats the OA?
Re: Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting   [#permalink] 18 Jun 2008, 14:55

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