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

 It is currently 19 Sep 2018, 06:43

### 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

# Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 03 Dec 2011
Posts: 6
Re: Smithtown University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations fro  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Dec 2011, 07:36
The argument claims Smithtown's unusually high success rate in fundraising was due to farming known donors rather than canvassing potential new donors. We are asked to identify support for this argument.

A - States Smithtown fund-raisers were no more successful with new donors than other universities. We can conclude that the majority of their excess success was from known previous donors. This supports the argument and is the correct choice.
B - Average size of donation is outside the scope of argument.
C - Claims most repeat donors were not contacted by the fund-raisers. This is outside the scope of argument, which is about success rates. However, if anything, this would tend to weaken the argument as if there are many repeat donors not contacted, one might assume the fund-raisers were therefore focusing on contacting new donors.
D - Directly weakens the argument.
E - Directly weakens the argument.
Manager
Joined: 10 Jan 2011
Posts: 168
Location: India
GMAT Date: 07-16-2012
GPA: 3.4
WE: Consulting (Consulting)
Re: Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Apr 2012, 00:30
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
_________________

-------Analyze why option A in SC wrong-------

Senior Manager
Joined: 08 Jun 2010
Posts: 335
Location: United States
Concentration: General Management, Finance
GMAT 1: 680 Q50 V32
Re: Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Apr 2012, 20:43
1
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.
Intern
Joined: 15 Sep 2011
Posts: 16
Re: Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Apr 2012, 13:24
I enjoy the communities effort to democratically elect the answer. It seems the majority either voted for A or C. My contribution to this problem would point out that A says nothing about the canvassing efforts, which is the main argument. The main argument states that the high success rate shows insufficient canvassing efforts, even though 80% of contacted donors donated.

A) points out that the success rate of Smithtowns fund-raisers is about as good as everyone elses. (However, we are supposed to find that they did a bad job)
C) points out that the majority of the donations came from donors that previously had donated but weren't even contacted. (Now, if Georgetown fund-raisers received money from 80% of the donors they contacted - and still got more of their donations from people that had previously donated without being contacted - can only mean that they didn't even contact donors that previously donated - meaning they were REALLY bad fundraisers. As it is stated in the stem, good fundraisers constantly try less likely prospects in an effort to expand the donor base. Bad ones don't do this and instead just focus on the low hanging fruit offered by previous donors. In C), the fundraisers didn't even do that - which clearly shows insufficient canvassing efforts.)

Just food for thought.
Intern
Joined: 04 Apr 2013
Posts: 14
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GPA: 3
Re: Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Apr 2013, 06:31
C is correct.

Question is aimed at determining whether or not the fund raisers are 'good fundraisers' or not... nothing else. By the question, a 'good fundraiser' is one who seeks to tap less-likely prospects and people who have not donated before thus giving a lower overall success rate.

Only answer 'C' addresses this as it states that most of the donations came from people who had donated previously, as they are the most likely to donate again. The fundraisers at Smithtown did not even contact these people, thus showing that the fundraisers were 'not good'.

Answer A us about frequency compared to other universities (??), Answer B is about 'average size of donations' (??), Answer D states that majority where from donors who never gave before which goes against the argument and does not support it, and Answer E is again, going against the argument not supporting it.

BOOM
Intern
Joined: 10 Apr 2013
Posts: 2
Re: Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Apr 2013, 14:30
It cannot be "C". the 80% success rate is based on donators they have contacted. Since "C" states that "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" then the 80% success rate has to come from first time donators which seriously weakens the argument.

By opposition, "A" implies that the fund raisers haven't been particularly successful in getting money from first time donators as they succeeded only "as frequently as were fund-raisers for other universities". In this case, the 80% success rate must come from people who had previously donated, thus strengthening the argument.

hope this helps
Current Student
Joined: 31 Mar 2013
Posts: 67
Location: India
GPA: 3.02
Re: Smithtown University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations fro  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Dec 2013, 09:09
Moderators and experts, kindly help! What is the OA? We have a different OA on this page and on smithtown-university-s-fund-raisers-succeeded-in-getting-78924.html.

THe question is same on both links though.
Intern
Joined: 02 Mar 2014
Posts: 1
Re: Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Mar 2014, 16:59
Goal: Find support for the argument
Argument: The success rate is not an indication that the fund-raisers are doing their best effort. Previous donors more likely to donate again.
Choices:
A-Proves that fund-raisers are contacting new prospects. WRONG.
B-New donors outnumbered previous donors thru fund raisers' effort. WRONG.
C-Donations from previous donors flow in without fund-raisers' effort. CORRECT.
D-New donors thru fund-raisers' effort. WRONG.
E-More than half of donation from new donors. WRONG.

*Wrong- because it does not SUPPORT the argument.
*Correct- supports the argument.

Just my two cents.
Manager
Joined: 10 Mar 2013
Posts: 225
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
Re: Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 May 2015, 22:04
1
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
Senior Manager
Joined: 05 Nov 2012
Posts: 491
Concentration: Technology, Other
Re: Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Jul 2015, 02:25
1
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.

_________________

--------------------------------------------------------
Regards

Intern
Joined: 05 Dec 2014
Posts: 23
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
GMAT 1: 610 Q50 V23
GPA: 3.82
WE: Corporate Finance (Consulting)
Re: Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Oct 2015, 23:45
2
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.

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.
Retired Moderator
Status: The best is yet to come.....
Joined: 10 Mar 2013
Posts: 527
Re: Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Nov 2015, 04:56
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.

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

C. The stem says 80% of those contacted made donations. Out of this 80%, most of the donation came from without canvassing, let it be 90%. So, without canvassing donation came 90% of 80%, i.e. 72% of the total donation. Rest 28% of total donation came through canvassing. So, it weakens the argument.
_________________

Hasan Mahmud

Intern
Joined: 11 Mar 2015
Posts: 18
GPA: 3.4
Re: Smithtown University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations fro  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Dec 2015, 12:38
2
1
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 .
Senior Manager
Status: Always try to face your worst fear because nothing GOOD comes easy. You must be UNCOMFORTABLE to get to your COMFORT ZONE
Joined: 15 Aug 2014
Posts: 311
Concentration: Marketing, Technology
GMAT 1: 570 Q44 V25
GMAT 2: 600 Q48 V25
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: Smithtown University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations fro  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Apr 2016, 21:32
souvik101990 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.

I am confused between options C & A

We need to strengthen the conclusion that, This success rate does not indicate that they were doing a good job. The high success rate shows insufficient canvassing effort.

Option C says there is no canvassing as "People previously donated to it were made without the university's fund-raisers having made any contact with the donors"

Please explain where my reasoning wrong & how option A correct
_________________

"When you want to succeed as bad as you want to breathe, then you’ll be successful.” - Eric Thomas

I need to work on timing badly!!

Senior Manager
Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Posts: 366
Location: India
Concentration: Social Entrepreneurship, General Management
GMAT 1: 690 Q49 V34
GMAT 2: 720 Q49 V39
GPA: 2.8
Re: Smithtown University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations fro  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Apr 2016, 01:34
1
smartguy595 wrote:
souvik101990 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.

I am confused between options C & A

We need to strengthen the conclusion that, This success rate does not indicate that they were doing a good job. The high success rate shows insufficient canvassing effort.

Option C says there is no canvassing as "People previously donated to it were made without the university's fund-raisers having made any contact with the donors"

Please explain where my reasoning wrong & how option A correct

C is out of scope.
The argument in question is about people "potential donors they contacted".
C talks about people who gave donation without the university contacting them.
Senior Manager
Status: Always try to face your worst fear because nothing GOOD comes easy. You must be UNCOMFORTABLE to get to your COMFORT ZONE
Joined: 15 Aug 2014
Posts: 311
Concentration: Marketing, Technology
GMAT 1: 570 Q44 V25
GMAT 2: 600 Q48 V25
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: Smithtown University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations fro  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 May 2016, 01:56
1
souvik101990 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.

Hi chetan,

can you please elaborate how option A strengthens this Argument!
_________________

"When you want to succeed as bad as you want to breathe, then you’ll be successful.” - Eric Thomas

I need to work on timing badly!!

Math Expert
Joined: 02 Aug 2009
Posts: 6787
Re: Smithtown University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations fro  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 May 2016, 02:29
smartguy595 wrote:
souvik101990 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.

Hi chetan,

can you please elaborate how option A strengthens this Argument!

Hi,

lets see the choice A..
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.

Clearly the lower % would be because of greater canvassing effect..

let me give some numeric values and explain ..

(I) % of OLD donors making payment = 100%
S contacted 100 people and they could get donors from 80 of them..
NOW choice tells us that S could get funds from NEW donors as frequently as OTHERS..
say 25 were new donors and ONLY 20% gave funds-- It is going to be same for S as well as OTHERS..
so S got funds from 75 out of 75 of OLD donors and 5 out of 25 NEW ones..

(II) lets see OTHERS--
now % of donors making payments is less than 80..
say 60%..
we know that OLD donors are more likely in both cases and we have taken it 100% for ease of understanding and the OUTCOME of contact with NEW also has been the same - 20%..
so our equation becomes--
$$\frac{100}{100} *x +(100-x)*\frac{20}{100}= 60$$
so x = 50..
this shows this institute recieved funds from 50 old donors and CONTACTED 50 new donors out of which 10 gave funds.. THUS canvassing effect of this institute was more than S..

similarly lesser the %, more the CANVASSING
_________________

1) Absolute modulus : http://gmatclub.com/forum/absolute-modulus-a-better-understanding-210849.html#p1622372
2)Combination of similar and dissimilar things : http://gmatclub.com/forum/topic215915.html
3) effects of arithmetic operations : https://gmatclub.com/forum/effects-of-arithmetic-operations-on-fractions-269413.html

GMAT online Tutor

Manager
Joined: 09 Oct 2015
Posts: 222
Re: Smithtown University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations fro  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 May 2016, 03:59
chetan2u wrote:
smartguy595 wrote:
souvik101990 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.

Hi chetan,

can you please elaborate how option A strengthens this Argument!

Hi,

lets see the choice A..
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.

Clearly the lower % would be because of greater canvassing effect..

let me give some numeric values and explain ..

(I) % of OLD donors making payment = 100%
S contacted 100 people and they could get donors from 80 of them..
NOW choice tells us that S could get funds from NEW donors as frequently as OTHERS..
say 25 were new donors and ONLY 20% gave funds-- It is going to be same for S as well as OTHERS..
so S got funds from 75 out of 75 of OLD donors and 5 out of 25 NEW ones..

(II) lets see OTHERS--
now % of donors making payments is less than 80..
say 60%..
we know that OLD donors are more likely in both cases and we have taken it 100% for ease of understanding and the OUTCOME of contact with NEW also has been the same - 20%..
so our equation becomes--
$$\frac{100}{100} *x +(100-x)*\frac{20}{100}= 60$$
so x = 50..
this shows this institute recieved funds from 50 old donors and CONTACTED 50 new donors out of which 10 gave funds.. THUS canvassing effect of this institute was more than S..

similarly lesser the %, more the CANVASSING

REGARDING CHOICE A),

how can we assume that only 20 percent of new donors have donated?
Intern
Joined: 02 Sep 2016
Posts: 44
Re: Smithtown University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations fro  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Oct 2016, 13:44
9
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
Re: Smithtown University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations fro &nbs [#permalink] 04 Oct 2016, 13:44

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3    Next  [ 58 posts ]

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®.