GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 20 Sep 2018, 00:08

### 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

# QOTD : Smithtown University’s fund-raisers succeeded

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Current Student
Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Posts: 5023
Location: India
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Marketing (Non-Profit and Government)
QOTD : Smithtown University’s fund-raisers succeeded  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

Updated on: 09 May 2018, 08:08
9
53
00:00

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

29% (01:51) correct 71% (01:59) wrong based on 1660 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Verbal Question of The Day: Day 2: Critical Reasoning

Subscribe to GMAT Question of the Day: E-mail | RSS

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.

Every question of the day will be followed by an expert reply by GMATNinja in 12-15 hours. Stay tuned! Post your answers and explanations to earn kudos.

_________________

Originally posted by souvik101990 on 02 May 2017, 09:23.
Last edited by GMATNinjaTwo on 09 May 2018, 08:08, edited 1 time in total.
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 2003
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
Re: QOTD : Smithtown University’s fund-raisers succeeded  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 May 2017, 09:25
8
5
On strengthen, weaken, and assumption questions, I generally start with the conclusion, stated exactly in the passage’s own words. In this case, the conclusion is basically the second and fourth sentences of the paragraph:

Quote:
This success rate, exceptionally high for university fund-raisers, does not indicate that they were doing a good job… The high success rate shows insufficient canvassing effort.

Great, and what’s the evidence to support this conclusion? Well, we know that fund-raisers have succeeded in getting donations from 80% of the potential donors they contacted, and “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.”

Bottom line: the argument is accusing Smithtown’s fund-raisers of being lousy, lazy fundraisers who just keep contacting people who have donated in the past. The correct answer will support the conclusion that the fund-raisers were not “doing a good job” and that “the high success rate shows insufficient canvassing effort.”

Quote:
(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 looks pretty good! Again: we’re trying to find support for the idea that the fund-raisers were not “doing a good job” and that “the high success rate shows insufficient canvassing effort.”

(A) is telling us that the Smithtown fund-raisers were no better than those of other universities – so that supports the idea that they were not necessarily “doing a good job.” Plus, if Smithtown’s fund-raisers were just as unsuccessful with potential new donors as other universities, then it must be the case that the “exceptionally high” 80% success rate came from targeting previous donors.

It’s hard to imagine that we’ll beat (A), but we always want to find four wrong answers –- so let’s go through the rest of them:

Quote:
(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.

Nope. If this is true, perhaps the fund-raisers deserve a cookie, but it’s not terribly relevant to the argument. We’re trying to support the idea that “the high success rate shows insufficient canvassing effort.” The SIZE of donations from new donors tells us nothing about canvassing effort.

Quote:
(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 is pretty much irrelevant to the conclusion. It just tells us that a lot of people donated without being contacted. This doesn’t tell us anything about the fund-raisers’ canvassing efforts with new donors, or whether they were “doing a good job” in general.

Quote:
(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.

Nope. This would definitely weaken the argument. If this is true, then the fund-raisers must have contacted a lot of new potential donors, with a high degree of success.

Quote:
(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.

If anything, this one weakens the argument. If (E) is true, it would be awfully hard to argue that the fundraisers were not “doing a good job” with new donors.

So (A) is our winner!
_________________

GMAT Club Verbal Expert | GMAT/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (Now hiring!) | GMAT blog | Food blog | Notoriously bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal
Reading Comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Sentence Correction

Series 1: Fundamentals of SC & CR | Series 2: Developing a Winning GMAT Mindset

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations
All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Hit the request verbal experts' reply button -- and please be specific about your question. Feel free to tag @GMATNinja and @GMATNinjaTwo in your post. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.

Sentence Correction articles & resources
How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

Reading Comprehension, Critical Reasoning, and other articles & resources
All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for \$29.99 | Time management on verbal

##### General Discussion
Board of Directors
Status: Stepping into my 10 years long dream
Joined: 18 Jul 2015
Posts: 3676
Re: QOTD : Smithtown University’s fund-raisers succeeded  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 May 2017, 05:09
3
1
The argument is saying fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations from 80% of people they contacted.

Author is saying they didn't do a good job as they contacted only those who are regular donors. So, they are not putting their alot of efforts.

Assumption: They contacted both the new and old donors.

We need to strengthen this.

(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, this is clearly telling us they contacted both types of donors. Hence, as per our assumption. Strengthener.

(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. --> Size of donations is irrelevant. We are more bothered about how many new and how old actually came forward.

(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. --> A TRAP. It is saying money came without contacting. But we are talking about success rate after contacting. So, this option is incorrect.

(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. Weakener. It is saying opposite of what conclusion is saying. Hence, incorrect

(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. Same as B
_________________

My GMAT Story: From V21 to V40
My MBA Journey: My 10 years long MBA Dream
My Secret Hacks: Best way to use GMATClub | Importance of an Error Log!
Verbal Resources: All SC Resources at one place | All CR Resources at one place

GMAT Club Inbuilt Error Log Functionality - View More.
New Visa Forum - Ask all your Visa Related Questions - here.

Find a bug in the new email templates and get rewarded with 2 weeks of GMATClub Tests for free

Retired Moderator
Joined: 04 Aug 2016
Posts: 551
Location: India
GPA: 4
WE: Engineering (Telecommunications)
Re: QOTD : Smithtown University’s fund-raisers succeeded  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 May 2017, 05:54
4
Wow. A tough question. I would like to present my reasoning:

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.

Option A points that the success of Smithtown University’s fund-raisers were same as that of other university fund-raisers with potential donors who never contributed before. If yes, then 80% exceptionally high rate for a university standard rate comes in from donors who do contribute frequently or did previously contribute. This implies that they did not achieve much success in expanding their donor base. Hence, the high success rate shows insufficient canvassing effort. This provides support for the argument.

(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.

Average depends on the sum and number of people. It could be that Sum is really huge but number of people are less. We are talking about donor base i.e. number of people. Eliminated.

(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 option is a contender. But the trap is "without having made any contact with the donors." We are evaluating their canvassing effort. So this option is irrelevant.

(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.

Does not indicate if the university guys made an effort to contact them. Canvassing efforts are not highlighted.

(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.

It could be that few users donated huge sum. Doesn't mean that donor base increased. Incorrect.
Intern
Joined: 08 Mar 2017
Posts: 14
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
GMAT 1: 730 Q49 V40
WE: Asset Management (Venture Capital)
Re: QOTD : Smithtown University’s fund-raisers succeeded  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 May 2017, 09:30
Strengthen the argument question.

Author is saying that 80% success rate isn't indicative of good work by fundraisers, and that the fundraisers aren't working hard because they aren't approaching new donors which are less likely to give.

The right answer will support the point that the fundraisers aren't approaching new donors or working hard to get donations.

A) This statement says that the fundraisers contacted new donors and were successful. This weakens the argument.
B) The fundraising team got larger donations from new donors than previous donors. This weakens the argument.
C) Most donations came from previous donors and the fundraising team didn't have to do any work to get these donations. This strengthens the argument.
D) Majority of donations are from new donors. This weakens the argument.
E) More than half of the donations came from new donors. This weakens the argument.

Also of note is that all of the wrong answers said essentially the same thing: that the fundraisers were successful in reaching new donors.
Senior SC Moderator
Joined: 14 Nov 2016
Posts: 1322
Location: Malaysia
Re: QOTD : Smithtown University’s fund-raisers succeeded  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 May 2017, 06:20
Quote:
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.

GMATNinja wrote:
On strengthen, weaken, and assumption questions, I generally start with the conclusion, stated exactly in the passage’s own words. In this case, the conclusion is basically the second and fourth sentences of the paragraph:

Quote:
This success rate, exceptionally high for university fund-raisers, does not indicate that they were doing a good job… The high success rate shows insufficient canvassing effort.

Great, and what’s the evidence to support this conclusion? Well, we know that fund-raisers have succeeded in getting donations from 80% of the potential donors they contacted, and “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.”

Bottom line: the argument is accusing Smithtown’s fund-raisers of being lousy, lazy fundraisers who just keep contacting people who have donated in the past. The correct answer will support the conclusion that the fund-raisers were not “doing a good job” and that “the high success rate shows insufficient canvassing effort.”

Quote:
(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 looks pretty good! Again: we’re trying to find support for the idea that the fund-raisers were not “doing a good job” and that “the high success rate shows insufficient canvassing effort.”

(A) is telling us that the Smithtown fund-raisers were no better than those of other universities – so that supports the idea that they were not necessarily “doing a good job.” Plus, if Smithtown’s fund-raisers were just as unsuccessful with potential new donors as other universities, then it must be the case that the “exceptionally high” 80% success rate came from targeting previous donors.

It’s hard to imagine that we’ll beat (A), but we always want to find four wrong answers –- so let’s go through the rest of them:

So (A) is our winner!

GMATNinja Could you help to explain donors who had "NEVER GIVEN before" in answer choice (A) versus donate are those who have "donated in the past" in the argument?
_________________

"Be challenged at EVERY MOMENT."

“Strength doesn’t come from what you can do. It comes from overcoming the things you once thought you couldn’t.”

"Each stage of the journey is crucial to attaining new heights of knowledge."

GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 2003
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
Re: QOTD : Smithtown University’s fund-raisers succeeded  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 May 2017, 09:40
Top Contributor
I'm not 100% sure that I'm interpreting your question correctly ziyuen, but the heart of the issue in the passage itself is that the fund-raisers' high success rate "does not indicate that they were doing a good job" because they've (presumably) focused their efforts on "those who have donated in the past." In other words, the passage alleges that the fund-raisers have mostly contacted potential donors who have given at least once -- and that the fund-raisers have mostly failed to contact people who have never donated.

And (A) talks explicitly about donors who have never donated in the past. And if the fund-raisers weren't unusually successful with those potential donors, then it must be true that they were targeting donors who HAD donated in the past.

Does that help?
_________________

GMAT Club Verbal Expert | GMAT/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (Now hiring!) | GMAT blog | Food blog | Notoriously bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal
Reading Comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Sentence Correction

Series 1: Fundamentals of SC & CR | Series 2: Developing a Winning GMAT Mindset

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations
All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Hit the request verbal experts' reply button -- and please be specific about your question. Feel free to tag @GMATNinja and @GMATNinjaTwo in your post. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.

Sentence Correction articles & resources
How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

Reading Comprehension, Critical Reasoning, and other articles & resources
All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for \$29.99 | Time management on verbal

Intern
Joined: 27 Jul 2017
Posts: 1
Re: QOTD : Smithtown University’s fund-raisers succeeded  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Aug 2017, 04:57
Its a tough question.
Senior Manager
Joined: 06 Jul 2016
Posts: 399
Location: Singapore
Concentration: Strategy, Finance
Re: QOTD : Smithtown University’s fund-raisers succeeded  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Aug 2017, 07:15
1
1
Quote:
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.

Basic Story - STU's fund-raisers have been half assed in their efforts to raise funds, as that 80% success rate signifies that all majority of the donors were previous donors, and no new cheap asses were invited to the party!
So we need a premise to prove that they were NOT doing a good job.

Which of the following, if true, provides more support for the argument?

Quote:
(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.

At first, I skimmed through this option and barely understood what it said. Anyway back to the point.
This basically says STU's success rate = Other Universities' success rate => STU's efforts weren't extraordinary, they were the same as everyone else, and this would lead us to believe they were lazy and just contacted their previous donors for a new round. Keep this option!

Quote:
(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 doesn't tell me anything about their efforts, or whether they really did work hard, or didn't. It does however tell me that all new donors donated more, but that is irrelevant. OUT!

Quote:
(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.

Honestly speaking, this option was fairly tempting to me, and I almost picked this option. Here is the kicker though. We are only concerned about the success rate post contact, so this option is irrelevant to the conclusion of the argument. OUT!

Quote:
(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 weakens the conclusion. OUT!

Quote:
(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.
[/quote]
It seems like GMAT ran out of things to put in the answer choices, so they basically put similar options in D and E. This weakens the conclusion as well. It's OUT!

I almost got this one wrong. But A is the answer!
_________________

Put in the work, and that dream score is yours!

Study Buddy Forum Moderator
Joined: 04 Sep 2016
Posts: 1196
Location: India
WE: Engineering (Other)
Re: QOTD : Smithtown University’s fund-raisers succeeded  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Aug 2017, 04:21
Hi Experts GMATNinja GMATNinjaTwo
Can you elaborate contrast in the sentence starting with: In the contrary ...

As per my understanding, this sentence tells us that since people who have donated presently are one who did so in past, good fund raisers constantly try to make an effort to convince people who are less likely to donate so that their donor base is expanded.

What's the contrast here? Also as per me, only the last sentence in argument is the main conclusion (An answer to Q: What is the whole argument about: insufficient canvassing efforts -> high success rates). Any views on the same?
_________________

It's the journey that brings us happiness not the destination.

VP
Status: Learning
Joined: 20 Dec 2015
Posts: 1188
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Marketing
GMAT 1: 670 Q48 V36
GRE 1: Q157 V157
GPA: 3.4
WE: Engineering (Manufacturing)
Re: QOTD : Smithtown University’s fund-raisers succeeded  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Aug 2017, 23:08
souvik101990 wrote:

Verbal Question of The Day: Day 2: Critical Reasoning

Subscribe to GMAT Question of the Day: E-mail | RSS

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.

Every question of the day will be followed by an expert reply by GMATNinja in 12-15 hours. Stay tuned! Post your answers and explanations to earn kudos.

Imo A

It is a very tough question .

The argument talks bout the canvassing efforts of the university fund raisers and how they were not very good at canvassing efforts even if they were able to get 80 % of the potential donors .
The argument also gives us conditions for canvassing effort to be a success "good fund-raisers constantly try less-likely prospects in an effort to expand the donor base"
Thus A gives us a reason why the canvassing efforts were not a success as their rate equaled that of other university fund raisers .

B is irrelevant
C is a trap as most of the funds came from from the donors who hand previously donated and without having contacted .
D But what about canvassing efforts may be the donors wanted to contribute to the university.
E Again same as D
_________________

GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 2003
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
Re: QOTD : Smithtown University’s fund-raisers succeeded  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Aug 2017, 15:28
1
Hi Experts GMATNinja GMATNinjaTwo
Can you elaborate contrast in the sentence starting with: In the contrary ...

As per my understanding, this sentence tells us that since people who have donated presently are one who did so in past, good fund raisers constantly try to make an effort to convince people who are less likely to donate so that their donor base is expanded.

What's the contrast here? Also as per me, only the last sentence in argument is the main conclusion (An answer to Q: What is the whole argument about: insufficient canvassing efforts -> high success rates). Any views on the same?

Quote:
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 contrast is between that sentence and the end of the previous sentence: "...that they were doing a good job."

In other words, the exceptionally high success rate might seem to indicate that they were doing a good job; ON THE CONTRARY, the evidence actually suggests that they were not doing a good job ("insufficient canvassing effort").

Yes, the conclusion is that the high success rate shows insufficient canvassing effort.
_________________

GMAT Club Verbal Expert | GMAT/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (Now hiring!) | GMAT blog | Food blog | Notoriously bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal
Reading Comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Sentence Correction

Series 1: Fundamentals of SC & CR | Series 2: Developing a Winning GMAT Mindset

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations
All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Hit the request verbal experts' reply button -- and please be specific about your question. Feel free to tag @GMATNinja and @GMATNinjaTwo in your post. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.

Sentence Correction articles & resources
How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

Reading Comprehension, Critical Reasoning, and other articles & resources
All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for \$29.99 | Time management on verbal

BSchool Forum Moderator
Joined: 28 Mar 2017
Posts: 1132
Location: India
GMAT 1: 730 Q49 V41
GPA: 4
Re: QOTD : Smithtown University’s fund-raisers succeeded  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Aug 2017, 11:44
Hi GMATNinja,

Could you please throw some light on my below doubt:

In option A, we are essentially taking other universities as a benchmark and comparing STU with them. But how do we know that other universities' fund raisers are also lousy?

We are just told that 80% is not a good number because the fund raisers didn't approach new investors for funding. That means out of this 80% majority is the last year donators. But, on what basis are we having a comparison in option A?

Regards
_________________

Kudos if my post helps!

Long And A Fruitful Journey - V21 to V41; If I can, So Can You!!

Preparing for RC my way

My study resources:
1. Useful Formulae, Concepts and Tricks-Quant
2. e-GMAT's ALL SC Compilation
3. LSAT RC compilation
4. Actual LSAT CR collection by Broal
5. QOTD RC (Carcass)
6. Challange OG RC
7. GMAT Prep Challenge RC

GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 2003
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
Re: QOTD : Smithtown University’s fund-raisers succeeded  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Sep 2017, 20:53
2
gmatexam439 wrote:
Hi GMATNinja,

Could you please throw some light on my below doubt:

In option A, we are essentially taking other universities as a benchmark and comparing STU with them. But how do we know that other universities' fund raisers are also lousy?

We are just told that 80% is not a good number because the fund raisers didn't approach new investors for funding. That means out of this 80% majority is the last year donators. But, on what basis are we having a comparison in option A?

Regards

Quote:
(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.

Remember, we are looking for something that strengthens the argument, which is that STU's exceptionally high donation rate does NOT indicate that they were doing a good job.

We are told that STU's 80% donation rate is exceptionally high for university fund-raisers. Thus, we can infer that the other universities generally have a lower overall donation rate. But if STU and those other universities have equal success rates when contacting new donors, this suggests that those other universities spend LESS time contacting past donors (low risk, high donation rate) and MORE time contacting new donors (low donation rate but, according to the author, a habit of a "good" fund-raiser).

Thus, choice (A) strengthens the argument that STU was not necessarily doing an "exceptional" job (according to the author's definition of a "good" fund-raiser), despite the "exceptional" donation rate.

I hope that helps!
_________________

GMAT Club Verbal Expert | GMAT/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (Now hiring!) | GMAT blog | Food blog | Notoriously bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal
Reading Comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Sentence Correction

Series 1: Fundamentals of SC & CR | Series 2: Developing a Winning GMAT Mindset

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations
All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Hit the request verbal experts' reply button -- and please be specific about your question. Feel free to tag @GMATNinja and @GMATNinjaTwo in your post. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.

Sentence Correction articles & resources
How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

Reading Comprehension, Critical Reasoning, and other articles & resources
All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for \$29.99 | Time management on verbal

SVP
Joined: 12 Dec 2016
Posts: 1796
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V33
GPA: 3.64
Re: QOTD : Smithtown University’s fund-raisers succeeded  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Nov 2017, 16:41
boiled down to A and C. Nevertheless, only A is correct b/c the conclusion seems to concern more with expanding the donation base. Also, the argument has to do with "donators they contacted" -> eliminate C.
Intern
Joined: 08 May 2018
Posts: 4
Re: QOTD : Smithtown University’s fund-raisers succeeded  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 May 2018, 19:43
I’ll go with C.
The answer should provide support to the point that University didn’t made sufficient effort .
A) this shows that the university made equal effort in comparison to other university . If others made significant effort then this university put significant effort too .
B) Does not show anything in effort . And points to amount and not to the number of contacts
C) correct .
D)not put enough efforts on present donors

Sent from my iPhone using GMAT Club Forum mobile app
SVP
Joined: 12 Dec 2016
Posts: 1796
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V33
GPA: 3.64
Re: QOTD : Smithtown University’s fund-raisers succeeded  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Jun 2018, 23:38
this is a good question and the pattern of this question is so common in gmat. Nevertheless, I do believe the question is very ambiguous.
Only A and C are closed. While A connects with the donors who have never given before, C relates to the donors who already made contributions before. For this reason, A is correct b/c A eliminates an alternative explanations that concerns with the donors who have never given before.

The question is so ambiguous not because of tricky words, but because the logic sense is not clear.
Manager
Joined: 25 Jan 2018
Posts: 104
Location: United States (IL)
Concentration: Strategy, Operations
Re: QOTD : Smithtown University’s fund-raisers succeeded  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Jul 2018, 08:06
abhimahna wrote:
The argument is saying fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations from 80% of people they contacted.

Author is saying they didn't do a good job as they contacted only those who are regular donors. So, they are not putting their alot of efforts.

Assumption: They contacted both the new and old donors.

We need to strengthen this.

(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, this is clearly telling us they contacted both types of donors. Hence, as per our assumption. Strengthener.

(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. --> Size of donations is irrelevant. We are more bothered about how many new and how old actually came forward.

(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. --> A TRAP. It is saying money came without contacting. But we are talking about success rate after contacting. So, this option is incorrect.

(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. Weakener. It is saying opposite of what conclusion is saying. Hence, incorrect

(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. Same as B

Hello abhimahna -

For "A" to be correct , we are assuming that fund-raisers of other universities are doing a lousy job. What if they are doing awesome job with the folks who rarely donate - ??
Manager
Joined: 10 Aug 2009
Posts: 56
QOTD : Smithtown University’s fund-raisers succeeded  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Aug 2018, 14:11
My take on the choices:

(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 is the only answer choice talking about canvassing efforts for new donors, SO even if you cannot be sure that this is weakening, by POE this is the answer.

(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.>>> IRRELEVANT, WE NEED TOTAL VALUE FROM NEW DONATIONS NOT AVERAGE.

(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 is not impacting canvassing efforts or talking about new donations or new donors. Only discussing about old donors for which we already know and hence we cannot say anything about canvassing efforts unless we know ANYTHING about either new donors/efforts for canvassing new donors/new donations. Hence, IRRELEVANT.

(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.>> CLEAR WEAKENER, see the difference in this choice VS B, this also shows B is irrelevant to 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. >>> Same as D.

_________________

Retaking gmat for second time, any re-takers please feel free to connect.

Manager
Joined: 11 May 2018
Posts: 109
Location: India
GMAT 1: 460 Q42 V14
Re: QOTD : Smithtown University’s fund-raisers succeeded  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Aug 2018, 05:24
Interesting to see many people choosing C.

can some one explain why many people have opted C while its completely against the conclusion?
Is it because of time pressure?
Thank you!
_________________

If you want to Thank me Give me a KUDOS
"I’ve spent months preparing for the day I’d face you. I’ve come a long way, GMAT"- SonGoku

Re: QOTD : Smithtown University’s fund-raisers succeeded &nbs [#permalink] 31 Aug 2018, 05:24
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# Events & Promotions

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne 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®.