Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) - Page 5
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 23 Jan 2017, 20:32

### 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

# Events & Promotions

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

# Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics
Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 21 Mar 2008
Posts: 244
Followers: 3

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

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

### Show Tags

20 Jun 2008, 09:26
Peace Ho Guys...I agree this was a very interesting CR and I misread it and went with C....and thats where it ends!
GMAT Instructor
Joined: 04 Jul 2006
Posts: 1264
Location: Madrid
Followers: 29

Kudos [?]: 298 [0], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

30 Jun 2008, 11:42
I think the answer is A because it counters a possible objection. What if they were unusually successful with those who had never donated previously? Then the 80% figure would not indicate that they had been concentrating on "low-hanging" fruit
GMAT Tutor
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 1183
Followers: 422

Kudos [?]: 1510 [0], given: 4

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

### Show Tags

01 Jul 2008, 04:11
durgesh79 wrote:
BTW I did some googling on this question. I Couldnt find a source or OA/OE. It has been disscussed on some other sites and fight is between A and C......

According to a year-old post on beatthegmat, the question is from Kaplan, and is not a real GMAT question.

I posted the following to beatthegmat about this question:

"The 80% is 'unusually high', according to the question. The argument is that the fundraisers concentrated more heavily on past donors, who are much more likely to donate, than they should have. A) says that the fundraisers had only average success when they sought contributions from people who had never donated. Already this suggests that the fundraisers are unexceptional. But, more importantly, if they only had average success with those who had never donated, how could they possibly have achieved their 'unusually high' 80%? This only seems possible if they focused mostly on past donors, as the argument contends."

I agree with earlier posts that C weakens the argument. If most past donors weren't even contacted by the fundraisers, the fundraisers must have been seeking donations from those who had never donated, which contradicts the argument's conclusion.
_________________

GMAT Tutor in Toronto

If you are looking for online GMAT math tutoring, or if you are interested in buying my advanced Quant books and problem sets, please contact me at ianstewartgmat at gmail.com

Intern
Joined: 11 Dec 2008
Posts: 24
Followers: 0

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

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

### Show Tags

30 Dec 2008, 11:36
Two OAs from 2 sources. Which one is correct?

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.
Manager
Joined: 28 Jul 2008
Posts: 100
Followers: 1

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

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

### Show Tags

30 Dec 2008, 15:44
would go with c. totally strengthens the argument
GMAT Tutor
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 1183
Followers: 422

Kudos [?]: 1510 [9] , given: 4

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

### Show Tags

30 Dec 2008, 16:49
9
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
It should be A. The argument is that the fundraisers concentrated more heavily on past donors, who are much more likely to donate, than they should have, leading to their 'unusually high' 80% success rate. C weakens the argument: C says that past donors donated without being contacted by the fundraisers at all; these donors then don't count towards the 80% success rate. If most of the past donors weren't approached by the fundraisers, who could the fundraisers have gotten their donations from? Clearly from people who were not past donors- making their 80% success rate, already 'unusually high', especially impressive because a sizeable proportion of the donors must have been new donors.

A says that the fundraisers had only average success when they sought contributions from people who had never donated. Already this suggests that the fundraisers are unexceptional. But, more importantly, if they only had average success with those who had never donated, how could they possibly have achieved their 'unusually high' 80%? This only seems possible if they focused mostly on past donors, as the argument contends. If they didn't approach many new donors, that would boost their overall success rate, because they were focusing on high probability targets, more so than is normal for university fundraisers, giving them an excellent conversion rate. They weren't especially good at picking the apples from the top of the tree, but by focusing on the low hanging fruit, they still had a great success percentage overall.
_________________

GMAT Tutor in Toronto

If you are looking for online GMAT math tutoring, or if you are interested in buying my advanced Quant books and problem sets, please contact me at ianstewartgmat at gmail.com

Intern
Joined: 11 Dec 2008
Posts: 24
Followers: 0

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

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

### Show Tags

30 Dec 2008, 18:26
You guys have identified those two OAs. Now, someone pls confirm a right OA. Thx.
Manager
Joined: 24 Sep 2008
Posts: 106
Followers: 1

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

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

### Show Tags

30 Dec 2008, 20:21
(A) is correct

(C) is saying fund raisers had no role.
_________________

Kick GMAT ass

Senior Manager
Joined: 08 Nov 2008
Posts: 302
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 199 [1] , given: 7

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

### Show Tags

30 Dec 2008, 21:43
1
This post received
KUDOS
A is the right choice ..
Found Below explnation in test magic and found it to be quite convincing !!
Please weigh the explaination . A , not C

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What do you think it's wrong? Where?

B Clearly weakens the argument.
C 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.
D Weakens.
E 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 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.--
_________________

"CEO in making"

SVP
Joined: 17 Jun 2008
Posts: 1569
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 250 [0], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

30 Dec 2008, 22:28
Really tough one. I did not understand the argument itself. After seeing the explanation for OA, everything is clear now.
VP
Joined: 18 May 2008
Posts: 1286
Followers: 16

Kudos [?]: 411 [0], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

31 Dec 2008, 01:19
Can anyone explain how does A imply that the efforts made were "average"?
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

31 Dec 2008, 20:16
ritula wrote:
Can anyone explain how does A imply that the efforts made were "average"?

UnknownPhD wrote:
good fund-raisers constantly try less-likely prospects in an effort to expand the donor base.

The conclusion is based on the reasoning above that GOOD FUND-RAISERS should OFTEN (constantly) be the ones spending little effort to expand the doror base.

A points directly that the already-sucessful fund raisers spent greater effort (=as frequently as..)to expand the base than the GOOD FUND-RAISERS does. So "the already-successful raisers" are NOT "GOOD FUND-RAISERS"

C. at some degree rephrases "people most likely to donate are those who have donated in the past"

Moreover, the argument is about THE SUCCESS of fund- raisers in getting donations rather than the donations themseves. C does not affect the argument
_________________
VP
Joined: 18 May 2008
Posts: 1286
Followers: 16

Kudos [?]: 411 [0], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

31 Dec 2008, 23:01
But I think in saying constantly try "less likely prospects". the argument means good fund raisers constantly try those people who havent donated previously
sondenso wrote:
ritula wrote:
Can anyone explain how does A imply that the efforts made were "average"?

UnknownPhD wrote:
good fund-raisers constantly try less-likely prospects in an effort to expand the donor base.

The conclusion is based on the reasoning above that GOOD FUND-RAISERS should OFTEN (constantly) be the ones spending little effort to expand the doror base.

A points directly that the already-sucessful fund raisers spent greater effort (=as frequently as..)to expand the base than the GOOD FUND-RAISERS does. So "the already-successful raisers" are NOT "GOOD FUND-RAISERS"

C. at some degree rephrases "people most likely to donate are those who have donated in the past"

Moreover, the argument is about THE SUCCESS of fund- raisers in getting donations rather than the donations themseves. C does not affect the argument
Manager
Joined: 01 Aug 2008
Posts: 118
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 130 [0], given: 2

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

### Show Tags

28 May 2009, 05:02
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.

Pls Explain
_________________

==============================================
Do not answer without sharing the reasoning behind ur choice
-----------------------------------------------------------
Working on my weakness : GMAT Verbal
------------------------------------------------------------
Ask:
Why, What, How, When, Where, Who
==============================================

Senior Manager
Joined: 04 Sep 2008
Posts: 259
Location: Kolkata
Schools: La Martiniere for Boys
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 90 [0], given: 9

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

### Show Tags

28 May 2009, 07:49
IMO C
_________________

Thanks
rampuria

Manager
Joined: 01 Aug 2008
Posts: 118
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 130 [0], given: 2

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

### Show Tags

28 May 2009, 11:18
rampuria wrote:
IMO C

why C? whats wrong with other options?
_________________

==============================================
Do not answer without sharing the reasoning behind ur choice
-----------------------------------------------------------
Working on my weakness : GMAT Verbal
------------------------------------------------------------
Ask:
Why, What, How, When, Where, Who
==============================================

Director
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 838
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 71 [0], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

28 May 2009, 16:25
E

the argument states that smithtown university's fundraisers didnt try hard enough because they didnt canvas new donors well enough.

I think C is a trap and is out of scope because it states that the fundraisers didnt even contact the new donors that gave all of the cash

I would pick E because it says that more than half of the money raised by fundraisers came from new donors. If the fund raisers tried harder then all of the money raised by them would have come from new donors. The old donors would have donated on their own as in option C
Senior Manager
Joined: 30 Mar 2009
Posts: 256
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 144 [0], given: 1

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

### Show Tags

28 May 2009, 17:13
IMO C
Argument: This success rate, exceptionally high for university fund-raisers, does not indicate that they were doing a good job
The context here is like this: fund raisers succeed in 8 out of 10 prospect donors whom they contact (who have never donated before), but the majority of donations, for exp 1000 people, are from those who have donated in the past
So, C states the point

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 ->out of scope
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 -->no influence
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 best
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 -->no influence. This is just a restating of the fact
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 -->weaken
Manager
Joined: 13 May 2009
Posts: 195
Schools: Stanford, Harvard, Berkeley, INSEAD
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 37 [0], given: 1

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

### Show Tags

28 May 2009, 21:13
[aligntable=][/aligntable]

C

This could mean that all the donations came from unsolicited offers, and every single person they contacted declined (goes against insufficient harvesting efforts).

Booya
_________________

Hades

Senior Manager
Joined: 04 Sep 2008
Posts: 259
Location: Kolkata
Schools: La Martiniere for Boys
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 90 [0], given: 9

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

### Show Tags

28 May 2009, 21:14
Evience which will show that new people have not contributed will support the argument
_________________

Thanks
rampuria

Re: Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting   [#permalink] 28 May 2009, 21:14

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

# Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics

 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®.