It is currently 19 Oct 2017, 15:44

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.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting

  post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

1 KUDOS received
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 08 Jun 2010
Posts: 389

Kudos [?]: 100 [1], given: 13

Location: United States
Concentration: General Management, Finance
GMAT 1: 680 Q50 V32
Re: Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Apr 2012, 20:43
1
This post received
KUDOS
This is a tough question. Because it forces you to take a certain viewpoint:

Look at the problem from the aspect of canvassing:-
(A) Smithtown University’s fund-raisers were successful in their contacts with potential donors who had never given before about as frequently as were fund-raisers for other universities in their contacts with such people.
So, same as other unis with new fund raisers – Canvassing was not done? Because canvassing should indicate higher new folks.
(B) This year the average size of the donations to Smithtown University from new donors when the university’s fund-raisers had contacted was larger than the average size of donations from donors who had given to the university before.
New fund raiser more funding per donor – Irrelevant to canvassing.
(C) This year most of the donations that came to Smithtown University from people who had previously donated to it were made without the university’s fund-raisers having made any contact with the donors.
New donor donated without any contact. – relates to canvassing but not relevant to new donors.
(D) The majority of the donations that fund-raisers succeeded in getting for Smithtown University this year were from donors who had never given to the university before.
Supports canvassing theory and says that canvassing worked, but doesn’t support the theory that canvassing was insufficient. So, weakens the argument.
(E) More than half of the money raised by Smithtown University’s fund-raisers came from donors who had never previously donated to the university.
Supports canvassing theory and says that canvassing worked, but doesn’t support the theory that canvassing was insufficient. So, weakens the argument.

Kudos [?]: 100 [1], given: 13

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 15 Sep 2011
Posts: 17

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 6

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

Show Tags

New post 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.

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 6

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 04 Apr 2013
Posts: 15

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

Concentration: Finance, Economics
GPA: 3
Re: Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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

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

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 10 Apr 2013
Posts: 2

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

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

Show Tags

New post 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

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

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 02 Mar 2014
Posts: 1

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

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

Show Tags

New post 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. :)

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

1 KUDOS received
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 10 Mar 2013
Posts: 269

Kudos [?]: 120 [1], given: 2405

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

New post 02 May 2015, 22:04
1
This post received
KUDOS
The answer is A not C.
C weakens the argument in a sly manner, but once you see it, the question becomes easier.
C states that most old donors gave money to the university without the university contacting them. This weakens the argument of the fund-raisers not looking for new donors, because it would then imply that a good portion of the 80% of donors contacted were new donors.

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

B: Wrong; doesn't strengthen the argument
DE: Wrong; weaken the argument

Kudos [?]: 120 [1], given: 2405

Verbal Forum Moderator
Verbal Forum Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 05 Nov 2012
Posts: 531

Kudos [?]: 620 [0], given: 606

Concentration: Technology, Other
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Jul 2015, 02:25
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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 :)

Kudos [?]: 620 [0], given: 606

2 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 05 Dec 2014
Posts: 23

Kudos [?]: 13 [2], given: 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

New post 09 Oct 2015, 23:45
2
This post received
KUDOS
drdas wrote:
Smithtown University’s fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations from 80 percent of the potential donors they contacted. This success rate, exceptionally high for university fund-raisers, does not indicate that they were doing a good job. On the contrary, since the people most likely to donate are those who have donated in the past, good fund-raisers constantly try less-likely prospects in an effort to expand the donor base. The high success rate shows insufficient canvassing effort.

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

(A) Smithtown University’s fund-raisers were successful in their contacts with potential donors who had never given before about as frequently as were fund-raisers for other universities in their contacts with such people.
(B) This year the average size of the donations to Smithtown University from new donors when the university’s fund-raisers had contacted was larger than the average size of donations from donors who had given to the university before.
(C) This year most of the donations that came to Smithtown University from people who had previously donated to it were made without the university’s fund-raisers having made any contact with the donors.
(D) The majority of the donations that fund-raisers succeeded in getting for Smithtown University this year were from donors who had never given to the university before.
(E) More than half of the money raised by Smithtown University’s fund-raisers came from donors who had never previously donated to the university.

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



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

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

A) Smithtown University’s fund-raisers were successful in their contacts with potential donors who had never given before about as frequently as were fund-raisers for other universities in their contacts with such people.First keep this one, it looks/sounds weird. So keep it. Dont leave it cause it sounds weird.

(B) This year the average size of the donations to Smithtown University from new donors when the university’s fund-raisers had contacted was larger than the average size of donations from donors who had given to the university before.if the donations from new donors were larger, then conclusion fails. Forgo B

(C) This year most of the donations that came to Smithtown University from people who had previously donated to it were made without the university’s fund-raisers having made any contact with the donors. If the FR did not even contact past donors, then clearly it only contacted new potential donors, and got a 80% donation rate from them. So this again weakens conclusion

(D) The majority of the donations that fund-raisers succeeded in getting for Smithtown University this year were from donors who had never given to the university before. Again clearly, weakens conclusion

(E) More than half of the money raised by Smithtown University’s fund-raisers came from donors who had never previously donated to the university. which means 50% of the (80% people donated) were 1st time donors. So obviously conclusion weakened.

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

Kudos [?]: 13 [2], given: 23

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
G
Status: The best is yet to come.....
Joined: 10 Mar 2013
Posts: 439

Kudos [?]: 168 [0], given: 182

GMAT ToolKit User CAT Tests
Re: Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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.

[Reveal] 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

Kudos [?]: 168 [0], given: 182

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 21 Jul 2016
Posts: 55

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 49

Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Operations
WE: Other (Computer Software)
Re: Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Nov 2016, 10:41
A is the correct answer

Conclusion: Inspite of getting 80% of people (contacted by fundraisers) to pay or donate, the effort is not good.

Premise: Good fundraisers try to expand new donor base...

Possible Assumptions:

1 - Most of the 80% people, who donated, includes most likely donators or people who have donated previously.
2 - Fundraisers did not try to build new donor base (who are less likely to donate)

B - Avg size of Funds from new donors > Avg size of duns from repeat donors.....A weakener (As, fundraisers did build new donor base and got larger ticket sizes)
C - Most of funding received from donors (old or repeat ones) are the ones who were never contacted. It means, people who were contacted, most include new donors. Again, a weakener
D - Majority of donations was received from people who had never given before...A weakener
E - More than half of money has been raised from new donors. Again, a weakener

A speaks of fundraisers having contacted those donors, who were oldies, but, they donated less frequently in comparison to frequency of donation made to an other university (A 2nd university other than Smithtown University)

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 49

BSchool Forum Moderator
avatar
G
Joined: 17 Jun 2016
Posts: 399

Kudos [?]: 184 [0], given: 198

Location: India
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V39
GPA: 3.65
WE: Engineering (Energy and Utilities)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink]

Show Tags

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.
_________________

Compilation of Blogs by Mike Mcgarry - Magoosh

Kudos [?]: 184 [0], given: 198

Expert Post
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4423

Kudos [?]: 8438 [0], given: 102

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

Show Tags

New post 01 Jul 2017, 09:23
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 :-)
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Image

Image

Kudos [?]: 8438 [0], given: 102

Re: Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting   [#permalink] 01 Jul 2017, 09:23

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 32 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting

  post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

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®.