|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 29 Jul 2004
Posts: 72
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink]
03 Oct 2004, 13:02
Question Stats:
66% (02:24) correct
33% (01:28) wrong based on 10 sessions
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: 29 Jul 2004
Posts: 72
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
This one was lost in the crowd...
Can people share their judgement/explanations on this one?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 26 Sep 2004
Posts: 145
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 29 Jul 2004
Posts: 72
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
Franky.... Can you elaborate further? I think the purpose here is to learn collectively and would much appreciate the justification behind a certain answer choice
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 06 Jun 2005
Posts: 166
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
3
[0], given: 0
|
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 fundraisers 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 fundraisers 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 44
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR University Funding [#permalink]
30 Jan 2006, 16:31
drdas wrote: Smithtown University’s fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations from 80 percent of the potential donors they contacted. This success rate, exceptionally high for university fund-raisers, does not indicate that they were doing a good job. On the contrary, since the people most likely to donate are those who have donated in the past, good fund-raisers constantly try less-likely prospects in an effort to expand the donor base. The high success rate shows insufficient canvassing effort.
Which of the following, if true, provides more support for the argument?
A. Smithtown University’s fund-raisers were successful in their contacts with potential donors who had never given before about as frequently as were fund-raisers for other universities in their contacts with such people. B. This year the average size of the donations to Smithtown University from new donors when the university’s fund-raisers had contacted was larger than the average size of donations from donors who had given to the university before. C. This year most of the donations that came to Smithtown University from people who had previously donated to it were made without the university’s fund-raisers having made any contact with the donors. D. The majority of the donations that fund-raisers succeeded in getting for Smithtown University this year were from donors who had never given to the university before. E. More than half of the money raised by Smithtown University’s fund-raisers came from donors who had never previously donated to the university.
A. doesn't provide more support for the argument, as it just says that smithtown fundraisers are just as good as other fundraisers.
B. goes against the arguement that smithtown fundraisers wern't impressive.
C. supports that argument that smithtown fundraisers weren't really that successful themselves. says that smithtown didn't show sufficient "canvassing effort"
D. suggests that smithtown fundraisers were sucessful.
E. same as D.
Therefore ans is C.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 24 Jan 2006
Posts: 26
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
(C) it is.
This was simple as you had to find an option which validated the fact that the fund raisers did not contact any new donors and they simply approached the previous donors.
Of all the options (C) is the only one which validated the argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 20 Sep 2005
Posts: 1023
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
23
[0], given: 0
|
Agree with C.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 11 Jan 2006
Posts: 277
Location: Chennai,India
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
3
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR University Funding [#permalink]
01 Feb 2006, 13:32
drdas wrote: Smithtown University’s fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations from 80 percent of the potential donors they contacted. This success rate, exceptionally high for university fund-raisers, does not indicate that they were doing a good job. On the contrary, since the people most likely to donate are those who have donated in the past, good fund-raisers constantly try less-likely prospects in an effort to expand the donor base. The high success rate shows insufficient canvassing effort.
Which of the following, if true, provides more support for the argument?
A. Smithtown University’s fund-raisers were successful in their contacts with potential donors who had never given before about as frequently as were fund-raisers for other universities in their contacts with such people. - this contridicts the premisis 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. - it says new doners - same reason as A C. This year most of the donations that came to Smithtown University from people who had previously donated to it were made without the university’s fund-raisers having made any contact with the donors. - this reasons the without canvassing theory said in the premises so this is right ! D. The majority of the donations that fund-raisers succeeded in getting for Smithtown University this year were from donors who had never given to the university before. - same as A E. More than half of the money raised by Smithtown University’s fund-raisers came from donors who had never previously donated to the university. - different words but same meaning as D
_________________
vazlkaiye porkalam vazltuthan parkanum.... porkalam maralam porkalthan maruma
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current Student
Joined: 29 Jan 2005
Posts: 5289
Followers: 17
Kudos [?]:
91
[0], given: 0
|
Only (C) hints at any sort of poor canvassing efforts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 4
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
I agree it should be C
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 21 Sep 2003
Posts: 1079
Location: USA
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
17
[0], given: 0
|
go C go.
Only C strongly supports the argument that there was not enough canvassing effort.
_________________
"To dream anything that you want to dream, that is the beauty of the human mind. To do anything that you want to do, that is the strength of the human will. To trust yourself, to test your limits, that is the courage to succeed."
- Bernard Edmonds
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 13 Jan 2007
Posts: 95
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
CR- Smithtown University [#permalink]
02 May 2007, 09:50
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 877
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
10
[0], given: 0
|
C supports the conclusion that it was an insufficient canvassing effort.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 14 Jan 2007
Posts: 787
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
32
[0], given: 0
|
mine is also 'C'.
'C' most strongly supports the argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 177
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
C it is
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 01 Jan 2007
Posts: 332
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
10
[0], given: 0
|
straight C.
Javed.
Cheers!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
Posts: 301
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
4
[0], given: 0
|
Yes to C
This must be an awful university if it does not even keep in touch with their previous doners!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 78
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
For me the answer is C.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 01 Dec 2006
Posts: 63
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
C for me too
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|