NEW HERE? LEARN MORE
closeclose
Last visit was: 26 Apr 2024, 10:32 It is currently 26 Apr 2024, 10:32
Decision Tracker
My Rewards
New posts
New comers' posts

Close
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel

Smithtown University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations fro

SORT BY:
Date
Kudos
 1   2   
Tags:
Find Similar Topics 
Show Tags
Hide Tags
User avatar
drdas
Intern
Intern
Joined: 29 Jul 2004
Posts: 43
Own Kudos [?]: 626 [420]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Smithtown University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations fro [#permalink] New post   Updated on: 15 May 2019, 20:29
34
Kudos
383
Bookmarks
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

28% (02:34) correct 72% (02:29) wrong based on 5430 sessions
Hide Show 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.



Show SpoilerWhy ?
Option C is out of scope: refer other forums : https://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/cr- ... t8037.html
ShowHide Answer
Official Answer
A

Originally posted by drdas on 03 Oct 2004, 13:02.
Last edited by bb on 15 May 2019, 20:29, edited 7 times in total.
Renamed the topic and edited the question.
Most Helpful Reply
User avatar
L
IanStewart
GMAT Tutor
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 4128
Own Kudos [?]: 9247 [96]
Given Kudos: 91
 Q51  V47
Send PM
Re: Smithtown University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations fro [#permalink] New post   30 Dec 2008, 17:49
76
Kudos
20
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
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.
User avatar
L
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Posts: 6921
Own Kudos [?]: 63672 [76]
Given Kudos: 1774
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Send PM
Re: Smithtown University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations fro [#permalink] New post   02 May 2017, 09:25
52
Kudos
24
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
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.”

On to the answer choices:

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!
User avatar
@p00rv@
Intern
Intern
Joined: 02 Sep 2016
Posts: 34
Own Kudos [?]: 191 [36]
Given Kudos: 130
Send PM
Re: Smithtown University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations fro [#permalink] New post   04 Oct 2016, 13:44
36
Kudos
IMO why A could be correct is because other students were also able to get the funds from those donors as easily as the students from Smithtown University. So this shows that the students from Smithtown University did not do any extra efforts as compared to the students from other universities else the funds given to these students would have been more as compared to the funds given to other students.


~@p00rv@
Consider giving Kudos..they are free and cost nothing but gratitude ;)
General Discussion
User avatar
tenaman10
Manager
Manager
Joined: 08 Nov 2008
Posts: 152
Own Kudos [?]: 1139 [5]
Given Kudos: 7
Send PM
Re: Smithtown University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations fro [#permalink] New post   30 Dec 2008, 22:43
3
Kudos
2
Bookmarks
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.--
User avatar
JarvisR
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 05 Nov 2012
Posts: 343
Own Kudos [?]: 4586 [1]
Given Kudos: 606
Concentration: Technology, Other
Schools: IIMA Simon '17 (D) Carlson '18 (D) Katz '17 (A$) IIML'17 (A) UConn FT "18 (A$) IIMB
Send PM
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: Smithtown University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations fro [#permalink] New post   14 Jul 2015, 02:25
1
Bookmarks
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.

Crux here is:
SU fund raiser's high success rate doesn't show that they r doing good job. High success rate shows insufficient effort.

One way to strengthen the conclusion is by comparing SU fund raiser performance with others.

A Vs C. As rest of the options are more on weakener line.

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.
>> SU and non SU students were equally successful in influencing the first time donors. This means both r equally good.


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 year 'most of the donation from people who had previously donated to Univ.' were made without the University's fund-raisers having made any contact with the donors.
Now this doesn't help in weakening or strengthening the argument. Argument is based upon the potential donor who were contacted. Donors who were not contacted represents different set.
avatar
debaratidg
Intern
Intern
Joined: 05 Dec 2014
Posts: 20
Own Kudos [?]: 35 [4]
Given Kudos: 23
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
GMAT 1: 610 Q50 V23
GPA: 3.82
WE:Corporate Finance (Consulting)
Send PM
Re: Smithtown University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations fro [#permalink] New post   09 Oct 2015, 23:45
3
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
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.

Show SpoilerWhy ?
Option C is out of scope: refer other forums : https://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.
User avatar
suresh8055
Intern
Intern
Joined: 11 Mar 2015
Posts: 15
Own Kudos [?]: 13 [3]
Given Kudos: 18
GPA: 3.4
Send PM
Re: Smithtown University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations fro [#permalink] New post   30 Dec 2015, 12:38
2
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Conclusion : 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.

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. - This can be a contender since good fundraisers constantly try less-likely prospects in an effort to expand the donor base.

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 we consider this then the percentage of getting donation would have increased. and fund-raiser would have done good job , which is contradictory

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 already present in the argument , so with this information we get know only that the fund-raiser did not contact to previous donor ,assuming they would donate this tym too. but this not true.

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. - Weakens the 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. - This is also weakening the conclusion


So A is better choice here .
User avatar
B
rakaisraka
Manager
Manager
Joined: 27 Aug 2015
Posts: 72
Own Kudos [?]: 14 [0]
Given Kudos: 80
Send PM
Re: Smithtown University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations fro [#permalink] New post   17 Oct 2016, 01:24
Hi SayantanC - can you please explain how A is correct.

A just states that students were successful in contacting potentail donors which is already given in argument. Cant understand how it suports the argument.
Thanks
User avatar
G
sayantanc2k
CR Moderator
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 2413
Own Kudos [?]: 15266 [7]
Given Kudos: 26
Location: Germany
Schools:
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE:Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
Send PM
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Smithtown University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations fro [#permalink] New post   17 Oct 2016, 09:50
6
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
rakaisraka wrote:
Hi SayantanC - can you please explain how A is correct.

A just states that students were successful in contacting potentail donors which is already given in argument. Cant understand how it suports the argument.
Thanks


The passage states that the Smiths students were 80% successful, but that does not imply best efforts. The reason is that they might be targeting primarily those donors who are likely to donate ( such as those who donated in the past). This implies that the Smiths students may not be targeting new donors who are unlikely to donate and hence are not putting up proper efforts.

Option A: The success rate of Smiths students with unlikely donors = success rate of other Univ students with unlikely donors (much less than 80% - implied.) This confirms that with unlikely donors Smiths students efforts are not 80%, but as same as the % success rate of the other Univ students.

Option A implies that the fact that the Smiths students are achieving 80% is not because of their effort, but because they are not targeting unlikely donors. Otherwise their success rate would be lower.

(In a way the passage implies that a low success rate is an indication of proper effort.)
User avatar
L
abhimahna
Board of Directors
Joined: 18 Jul 2015
Status:Emory Goizueta Alum
Posts: 3600
Own Kudos [?]: 5426 [7]
Given Kudos: 346
Send PM
Reviews Badge
Re: Smithtown University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations fro [#permalink] New post   03 May 2017, 05:09
5
Kudos
2
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
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
User avatar
P
warriorguy
Retired Moderator
Joined: 04 Aug 2016
Posts: 391
Own Kudos [?]: 337 [5]
Given Kudos: 144
Location: India
Concentration: Leadership, Strategy
GPA: 4
WE:Engineering (Telecommunications)
Send PM
Re: Smithtown University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations fro [#permalink] New post   03 May 2017, 05:54
5
Kudos
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.
User avatar
L
BillyZ
Current Student
Joined: 14 Nov 2016
Posts: 1174
Own Kudos [?]: 20718 [0]
Given Kudos: 926
Location: Malaysia
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
Schools: Sloan '23 (D) Tuck '23 (D) Darden '23 (D) Ross '23 (D) Kellogg '23 (D) Wharton '23 (D) Booth '23 (D) Fuqua '24 (A) Harvard '24 (D) Stanford '24 (D)
GMAT 1: 750 Q51 V40 (Online)
GPA: 3.53
Send PM
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: Smithtown University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations fro [#permalink] New post   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.”

On to the answer choices:

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?
User avatar
L
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Posts: 6921
Own Kudos [?]: 63672 [0]
Given Kudos: 1774
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Send PM
Re: Smithtown University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations fro [#permalink] New post   05 May 2017, 09:40
Expert Reply
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?
User avatar
S
SVaidyaraman
Director
Director
Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Posts: 589
Own Kudos [?]: 1519 [0]
Given Kudos: 20
Location: India
Send PM
Re: Smithtown University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations fro [#permalink] New post   01 Jun 2017, 01:37
Expert Reply
eybrj2 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 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.

What would strengthen the conclusion is the argument that the success rate is exaggerated compared to what would really expect from a good canvassing. In other words even in a good canvassing one does not get such success rate and if a canvassing gets such high success rate it is not doing the right thing

Only choice A supports this because it shows in reality in the case of donations from unknown people the success rate is pretty much as that of the other universities and that the the fundraisers were more focusing on people who had given before and that is the reason for high success rate but insufficient canvassing
User avatar
P
mihir0710
Current Student
Joined: 17 Jun 2016
Posts: 474
Own Kudos [?]: 946 [0]
Given Kudos: 206
Location: India
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V39
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V37
GPA: 3.65
WE:Engineering (Energy and Utilities)
Send PM
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: Smithtown University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations fro [#permalink] New post   01 Jul 2017, 05:33
Hi GMATNinja, mikemcgarry
Sirs,

Can you please take a moment to explain the logic behind option A.

I see that we can eliminate all other option by one or the other logic but such a POE also leads to elimination of option A..

So, I want to understand the logic behind option A.
User avatar
G
mikemcgarry
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4452
Own Kudos [?]: 28574 [6]
Given Kudos: 130
Re: Smithtown University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations fro [#permalink] New post   01 Jul 2017, 09:23
5
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
mihir0710 wrote:
Hi GMATNinja, mikemcgarry
Sirs,

Can you please take a moment to explain the logic behind option A.

I see that we can eliminate all other option by one or the other logic but such a POE also leads to elimination of option A..

So, I want to understand the logic behind option A.

Dear mihir0710,

I'm happy to respond. :-)

Here's the basic logic of the argument. The entire potential donor pool is divided into two very different groups:
Group #1: people who donated before; these people are very likely to donate again
Group #2: people who have never donated before; these people are very unlikely to donate
The argument says that this folks at Smithtown University must be asking only group #1 people, and so they are getting more donations where it's very likely to get donations. The argument goes on to point out that successful fundraising of course would ask the Group #1 people but would also canvas a wide array of Group #2 people, because as soon as someone in Group #2 gives, they join Group #1! That's how very successful fundraising works, and the argument is that the only way that Smithtown University’s fund-raisers could have such a high success rate is by asking only the Group #1 people and more or less ignoring the Group #2 people.

Think about this argument. This argument is a profound indictment of the fund-raising department at Smithtown University. Essentially, this argument is saying that that these professionals do not understand how to do a good job. That's a very serious charge to make at any professional.

What might we expect Smithtown University’s fund-raisers say in say in their self-defense? Well, if they were getting an 80% successful with both the people in Group #1 and the people in Group #2, that would be amazing! They would have found the "holy grail" of fundraising right there!

What is brilliant about choice (A) is that it anticipates what these fund-raisers would say and immediately shoots it down.
(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.
In other words, the success that Smithtown University’s fund-raisers has with Group #2 folks is about the same as everyone else has with Group #2 folks. This confirms that the Smithtown University’s fund-raisers are not doing anything extraordinary, so their inflated success rate must come from focusing too much on Group #1.

My friend, in thinking about GMAT CR, think about the cast of characters. Think about the real people and what they naturally would say. This perspective can help you in many CR questions.

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)
User avatar
G
akshayk
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 06 Jul 2016
Posts: 280
Own Kudos [?]: 370 [2]
Given Kudos: 99
Location: Singapore
Concentration: Strategy, Finance
Send PM
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Smithtown University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations fro [#permalink] New post   04 Aug 2017, 07:15
1
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
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!
User avatar
L
adkikani
IIM School Moderator
Joined: 04 Sep 2016
Posts: 1261
Own Kudos [?]: 1240 [0]
Given Kudos: 1207
Location: India
WE:Engineering (Other)
Send PM
Re: Smithtown University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations fro [#permalink] New post   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?
User avatar
L
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Posts: 6921
Own Kudos [?]: 63672 [1]
Given Kudos: 1774
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Send PM
Re: Smithtown University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations fro [#permalink] New post   24 Aug 2017, 15:28
1
Kudos
Expert Reply
adkikani wrote:
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 Bot
gmatclubot
Re: Smithtown University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations fro [#permalink]
24 Aug 2017, 15:28
 1   2   
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6921 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts
mysterymanrog
CR Forum Moderator
832 posts

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne
Main navigation
GMAT Resources
Partners
MBA Resources
www.gmac.com|www.mba.com | | GMAT Club Rules | Terms and Conditions