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

 It is currently 20 Jan 2017, 04:54

### 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

Manager
Joined: 29 Jul 2004
Posts: 71
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 64 [6] , given: 0

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

### Show Tags

03 Oct 2004, 12:02
6
KUDOS
28
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

42% (02:18) correct 58% (01:36) wrong based on 1651 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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.

[Reveal] Spoiler: Why ?
Option C is out of scope: refer other forums : http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/cr- ... t8037.html
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

Last edited by souvik101990 on 02 May 2016, 09:55, edited 3 times in total.
OA is edited
If you have any questions
New!
GMAT Tutor
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 1183
Followers: 421

Kudos [?]: 1505 [9] , given: 4

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

### Show Tags

30 Dec 2008, 16:49
9
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

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

Kudos [?]: 217 [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 [?]: 570 [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.
Intern
Joined: 21 Jan 2012
Posts: 5
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 2 [2] , given: 55

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

### Show Tags

22 Nov 2012, 15:31
2
KUDOS
nishtil wrote:
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.

Option A is irrelevant as it compares donors from other universities to Smithtown’s university.
Option B is also irrelevant as average size of the donation does not affect the conclusion.
option C strengthens the conclusion as donors whom the contact is not made is making donation then measuring success based on conversion of these donors is wrong. --- correct answer
option D we cannot compare amount of donation with no of donations. This statement is either irrelevant or indirectly weakens the conclusion.
option E again the amount of money and no of donations should not be compared.... irrelevant

I am not sure why OA is A.... Please enlighten me

I had the same thought process as you. But then I re-read the question. Here's my take on this :

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.

According to the author's definition, a "good fund-raiser" has the following characteristics :
- constantly try less-likely prospects
- may not have exceptionally high success rate

Hence only choice A fits gives any additional info as to why HE THINKS that the fund raisers did not do a good job. This fits the bill of any answer choice that give additional info that would strengthen the argument/conclusion.
I think answer choice A appeals to the common sense aspect our thinking and I have seen that these answer choices are usually a trap. (especially for must-be true questions)

Hope that helps
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: 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 .
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
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"

Math Forum Moderator
Joined: 20 Dec 2010
Posts: 2021
Followers: 161

Kudos [?]: 1705 [1] , given: 376

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

### Show Tags

10 Oct 2011, 23:43
1
KUDOS
greatfriend wrote:
Correct answer is C since this argument twice prove fund raisers passivity.

I ruled out C.

Fact:
80% of the people CONTACTED donated.

Argument says:
This great percentage is an indicator that shows the fundraiser contacted only frequent donors, or it could not have had such high success rate.

C says: Fundraiser didn't contact the regular donors because most of them donated voluntarily. This goes against the argument by targeting the assumption in the reasoning of the argument. If regular donors were not contacted so much, then the 80% success rate could only be from the less-likely donors who were actually contacted.
_________________
Senior Manager
Joined: 25 Nov 2011
Posts: 261
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, General Management
GPA: 3.95
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 165 [1] , given: 20

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

### Show Tags

19 Jan 2012, 16:53
1
KUDOS
I agree answer should be A, but it is a vague and weak answer.

Given that B, D & E weaken the argument and C is irrelevant, A emerges as the answer.
_________________

-------------------------
-Aravind Chembeti

Senior Manager
Joined: 08 Jun 2010
Posts: 397
Location: United States
Concentration: General Management, Finance
GMAT 1: 680 Q50 V32
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 88 [1] , given: 13

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

### Show Tags

03 Apr 2012, 19:43
1
KUDOS
This is a tough question. Because it forces you to take a certain viewpoint:

Look at the problem from the aspect of canvassing:-
(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.
So, same as other unis with new fund raisers – Canvassing was not done? Because canvassing should indicate higher new folks.
(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.
New fund raiser more funding per donor – Irrelevant to canvassing.
(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.
New donor donated without any contact. – relates to canvassing but not relevant to new 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.
Supports canvassing theory and says that canvassing worked, but doesn’t support the theory that canvassing was insufficient. So, weakens the argument.
(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.
Supports canvassing theory and says that canvassing worked, but doesn’t support the theory that canvassing was insufficient. So, weakens the argument.
Senior Manager
Joined: 10 Mar 2013
Posts: 290
GMAT 1: 620 Q44 V31
GMAT 2: 690 Q47 V37
GMAT 3: 610 Q47 V28
GMAT 4: 700 Q50 V34
GMAT 5: 700 Q49 V36
GMAT 6: 690 Q48 V35
GMAT 7: 750 Q49 V42
GMAT 8: 730 Q50 V39
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 98 [1] , given: 2405

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

### Show Tags

02 May 2015, 21:04
1
KUDOS
The answer is A not C.
C weakens the argument in a sly manner, but once you see it, the question becomes easier.
C states that most old donors gave money to the university without the university contacting them. This weakens the argument of the fund-raisers not looking for new donors, because it would then imply that a good portion of the 80% of donors contacted were new donors.

A states that the school performed just as well as other schools did when it came to expanding its donor base; this implies that they didn't do an outstanding job as described in the argument; this strengthens the argument albeit weakly, but it is the BEST answer

B: Wrong; doesn't strengthen the argument
DE: Wrong; weaken the argument
Intern
Joined: 05 Dec 2014
Posts: 23
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
GMAT 1: 610 Q50 V23
GPA: 3.82
WE: Corporate Finance (Consulting)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 11 [1] , given: 23

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

### Show Tags

09 Oct 2015, 22:45
1
KUDOS
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.

[Reveal] Spoiler: Why ?
Option C is out of scope: refer other forums : http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/cr- ... t8037.html

As e-gmat says. Understanding the prompt is very important and considerable time must be spent on it even in the exam instead of rushing through the choices.

What the passage says: FR have got funds from 80% of the people they contacted. ---> But this isnt a sign of their success (why?) (Conclusion) ---> (because) most people who donate have donated before and are past donors as well who don't need to motivated to donate ---> Job of FR is to find more potential 1st time donors and make them donate. ---> Clearly they are failing.

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.First keep this one, it looks/sounds weird. So keep it. Dont leave it cause it sounds weird.

(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.if the donations from new donors were larger, then conclusion fails. Forgo B

(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. If the FR did not even contact past donors, then clearly it only contacted new potential donors, and got a 80% donation rate from them. So this again weakens conclusion

(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. Again clearly, weakens conclusion

(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 means 50% of the (80% people donated) were 1st time donors. So obviously conclusion weakened.

The only option left is A. which did sound weird at first, But IS the right answer. It sounds weird at first, since we don't know about success rate/frequency of "other FR". But it is probably lining some sort of similarity here, that even the "other FR" group has failed. By POE, this is the answer. though weird. go for it.
Manager
Joined: 29 Jul 2004
Posts: 71
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 64 [0], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

03 Oct 2004, 21:55
This one was lost in the crowd...

Can people share their judgement/explanations on this one?
Manager
Joined: 29 Jul 2004
Posts: 71
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 64 [0], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

04 Oct 2004, 06:28
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: 162
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 123 [0], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

21 Jul 2005, 05:17
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 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 Universityâ€™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 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.
Intern
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 44
Followers: 0

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

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

### Show Tags

30 Jan 2006, 15:31
drdas wrote:
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.

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

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

### Show Tags

30 Jan 2006, 22:17
(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: 1021
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 35 [0], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

31 Jan 2006, 16:20
Agree with C.
Senior Manager
Joined: 11 Jan 2006
Posts: 269
Location: Chennai,India
Followers: 1

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

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

### Show Tags

01 Feb 2006, 12:32
drdas wrote:
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. - this contridicts the premisis
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. - 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 universityâ€™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 Universityâ€™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

Re: Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting   [#permalink] 01 Feb 2006, 12:32

Go to page    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