It is currently 17 Oct 2017, 16:06

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

9 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 29 Jul 2004
Posts: 67

Kudos [?]: 88 [9], given: 0

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

Show Tags

New post 03 Oct 2004, 13:02
9
This post received
KUDOS
41
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  95% (hard)

Question Stats:

40% (01:16) correct 60% (01:31) wrong based on 2073 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Edit: This discussion has retired. Find the new thread HERE


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

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

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

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

Last edited by souvik101990 on 02 May 2017, 09:25, edited 4 times in total.
OA is edited

Kudos [?]: 88 [9], given: 0

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 11 Jan 2006
Posts: 266

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

Location: Chennai,India
Re: Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Feb 2006, 13:32
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. - this contridicts the premisis
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. - it says new doners - same reason as A
C. This year most of the donations that came to Smithtown University from people who had previously donated to it were made without the university’s fund-raisers having made any contact with the donors. - this reasons the without canvassing theory said in the premises so this is right !
D. The majority of the donations that fund-raisers succeeded in getting for Smithtown University this year were from donors who had never given to the university before. - same as A
E. More than half of the money raised by Smithtown University’s fund-raisers came from donors who had never previously donated to the university. - different words but same meaning as D

_________________

vazlkaiye porkalam vazltuthan parkanum.... porkalam maralam porkalthan maruma

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

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 13 Jan 2007
Posts: 91

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 0

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

Show Tags

New post 02 May 2007, 09:50
Could you try the problem below? Please, explain your answer.
(I don't have the OA)

S11-Q14. 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.

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 06 Jul 2004
Posts: 468

Kudos [?]: 136 [0], given: 0

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

Show Tags

New post 14 May 2007, 23:20
S11-Q14. 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.

C is negated by the following :

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.

if the large chunk of the donation is coming from people who have donated in the past with being contacted, that means that the campaigners were "good fund-raisers", in that they only approached those people who have never donated before. That is a good campaign.

A is the right answer in my opinion.

Smithtown university campaigners got more "from people who have never donated in the past" than the other university campaigners did. This means that they contacted less such people than the other university campaigners did. That means they ran a bad campaign.

since we don't have an OA, it would be nice if more people chime in with their explanations.
_________________

for every person who doesn't try because he is
afraid of loosing , there is another person who
keeps making mistakes and succeeds..

Kudos [?]: 136 [0], given: 0

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 29 Apr 2007
Posts: 23

Kudos [?]: 41 [0], given: 0

Concentration: Finance
GMAT 1: 760 Q48 V45
GPA: 3.71
Re: Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Jun 2007, 16:59
The blurb basically says that the Smithtown fund-raisers got money from 80% of the donors they contacted. The blurb also says that previous donors are most likely to have donated in the past.

In order to achieve 80% donation rate, the number of non-previous donors would have to be much greater than usual OR the fundraisers must have only contacted a few of them. If we choose option A, this means that Smithtown fundraisers were about as successful as other towns in collecting money from non-previous donors (AKA, about the same rate).

Option A proves that Smithtown fundraisers were no more successful with non-previous donors and therefore must have contacted fewer of them. This provides support for the argument that the high success rate shows insufficient canvassing effort.

Kudos [?]: 41 [0], given: 0

Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
Posts: 781

Kudos [?]: 181 [0], given: 0

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

Show Tags

New post 03 Feb 2008, 16:32
Conclusion: The high success rate shows insufficient canvassing effort. Any information that provides high fund raising is from old donors strengthens or supports this argument.

A. Smithtown University’s fund-raisers were successful in their contacts with potential donors who had never given before about as frequently as were fund-raisers for other universities in their contacts with such people.[This weakens the argument – eliminate it]

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 weakens the argument – eliminate it]

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 strengthen the conclusion – hold it]

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 weaken the argument – eliminate it]

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.[Weakens the argument – eliminate it]

Answer: C

Kudos [?]: 181 [0], given: 0

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 07 Jan 2008
Posts: 114

Kudos [?]: 33 [0], given: 0

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

Show Tags

New post 05 Feb 2008, 14:48
IMO: B

Conclusion: High success rate shows inefficient canvassing.
support the conclusion: pick the choice that implies that current practices are not the best.

C is not correct because the it says that "...people who had previously donated to it were made without the university’s fund-raisers having made any contact with the donors..." therefore it implies that the university fundraisers probably did not contact them.

The passage says "fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations from 80 percent of the potential donors they contacted".

From these two statements two things become clear: first, old donors gave without getting contacted; second, fundraisers had success in getting funds from a lot of new donors.

If these two statements are true than the 'current process' is efficient.

Therefore, the only choice that supports the argument is B. It implies that fundraisers should have invested more resources in contacting new donors as the size of donation from these people was much bigger.

very tricky one...am I correct??


hanumayamma wrote:
Conclusion: The high success rate shows insufficient canvassing effort. Any information that provides high fund raising is from old donors strengthens or supports this argument.

A. Smithtown University’s fund-raisers were successful in their contacts with potential donors who had never given before about as frequently as were fund-raisers for other universities in their contacts with such people.[This weakens the argument – eliminate it]

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 weakens the argument – eliminate it]

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 strengthen the conclusion – hold it]

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 weaken the argument – eliminate it]

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.[Weakens the argument – eliminate it]

Answer: C

Kudos [?]: 33 [0], given: 0

Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
Posts: 781

Kudos [?]: 181 [0], given: 0

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

Show Tags

New post 06 Feb 2008, 13:34
Thanks Jay02 for your feedback.

In my first cut, I wrongly identified the conclusion. Here is my retake.


Conclusion is tricky. I think if we identify the conclusion, ninety percent of the problem resolved.
Conclusion: 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.


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.[Strengthens the argument and also showing canvassing effort - Hold it]

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 weakens the argument – eliminate it]

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.[Definitely not – Elimintge it]

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.[Enticing - This also strengthens the conclusion, but canvassing effort missing – eliminate it]

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.[ Enticing - This also strengthens the conclusion, but canvassing effort missing – eliminate it]

Answer: A

Kudos [?]: 181 [0], given: 0

SVP
SVP
avatar
Joined: 04 May 2006
Posts: 1886

Kudos [?]: 1396 [0], given: 1

Schools: CBS, Kellogg
Premium Member
Re: Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Jun 2008, 18:52
lexis wrote:
Smithtown University’s fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations from 80 percent of the potential donors they contacted. This success rate, exceptionally high for university fund-raisers, does not indicate that they were doing a good job. On the contrary, since the people most likely to donate are those who have donated in the past, good fund-raisers constantly try less-likely prospects in an effort to expand the donor base. The high success rate shows insufficient canvassing effort.

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

A. Smithtown University’s fund-raisers were successful in their contacts with potential donors who had never given before about as frequently as were fund-raisers for other universities in their contacts with such people.
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


1.If I see this in the real, I stuck! due to timed pressure and because C is phrased in the complicated way that you can not understand it right away. But C should be OA

2. If you see the flaw of this argument, you will catch what C means! The argument goes from a succeed-in rate, in the past, of collecting donations to conclude that this is not good job. And then raise some other reasons explained why it is not good job.

3. flaw of this argument is the author assume ,this year, the fund-raisers did not contact donators who are most likely to donate.
4. to support this assumption, you say, a few, if not at all, of donation this year comes from donators who are most likely to donate.

5. C say exactly the phrase I made above!

_________________

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Kudos [?]: 1396 [0], given: 1

Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 27 May 2008
Posts: 541

Kudos [?]: 363 [0], given: 0

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

Show Tags

New post 19 Jun 2008, 20:52
jallenmorris wrote:
If the person is trying to remember the question from the real GMAT then I totally agree, a typo could easily have happened, but you're not likely to get anyone to admit it is a real GMAT question as disclosing it as such is a violation of the nondisclosure agreement we all sign when we take the test. Even if I did post the original question but recognized it from my GMAT experience, I would say nothing as confirming it as such is the same as posting it to begin with.


That's exactly why i asked for the source, I dont think its from OG. If it is from one of the GMAT tution classes then there is no chance of typo, and I'll be wrong .......
but if it is just taken from internet or 1000CR stuff.... or some of the chinese JJ sites, then there is a high chance, that its a real GMAT question with a typo... i wont get to admit it to anyone ..... but it'll support my doubt.....

BTW I did some googling on this question. I Couldnt find a source or OA/OE. It has been disscussed on some other sites and fight is between A and C......

And Lexis, I'm not asking to change the question stem. I'm just saying that if we change the question stem, there will be a clear answer.....

Having said all that ... if i come across this question (or similar) in any tests/forum or even real GMAT in its current form. I'll mark A (without any doubt)....

Kudos [?]: 363 [0], given: 0

Expert Post
GMAT Tutor
avatar
B
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 1339

Kudos [?]: 1951 [0], given: 6

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

Show Tags

New post 01 Jul 2008, 05:11
durgesh79 wrote:
BTW I did some googling on this question. I Couldnt find a source or OA/OE. It has been disscussed on some other sites and fight is between A and C......


According to a year-old post on beatthegmat, the question is from Kaplan, and is not a real GMAT question.

I posted the following to beatthegmat about this question:

"The 80% is 'unusually high', according to the question. The argument is that the fundraisers concentrated more heavily on past donors, who are much more likely to donate, than they should have. 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."

I agree with earlier posts that C weakens the argument. If most past donors weren't even contacted by the fundraisers, the fundraisers must have been seeking donations from those who had never donated, which contradicts the argument's conclusion.
_________________

GMAT Tutor in Toronto

If you are looking for online GMAT math tutoring, or if you are interested in buying my advanced Quant books and problem sets, please contact me at ianstewartgmat at gmail.com

Kudos [?]: 1951 [0], given: 6

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 11 Dec 2008
Posts: 23

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

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

Show Tags

New post 30 Dec 2008, 12:36
Two OAs from 2 sources. Which one is correct?

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.

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

Expert Post
15 KUDOS received
GMAT Tutor
avatar
B
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 1339

Kudos [?]: 1951 [15], given: 6

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

Show Tags

New post 30 Dec 2008, 17:49
15
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
It should be A. The argument is that the fundraisers concentrated more heavily on past donors, who are much more likely to donate, than they should have, leading to their 'unusually high' 80% success rate. C weakens the argument: C says that past donors donated without being contacted by the fundraisers at all; these donors then don't count towards the 80% success rate. If most of the past donors weren't approached by the fundraisers, who could the fundraisers have gotten their donations from? Clearly from people who were not past donors- making their 80% success rate, already 'unusually high', especially impressive because a sizeable proportion of the donors must have been new donors.

A says that the fundraisers had only average success when they sought contributions from people who had never donated. Already this suggests that the fundraisers are unexceptional. But, more importantly, if they only had average success with those who had never donated, how could they possibly have achieved their 'unusually high' 80%? This only seems possible if they focused mostly on past donors, as the argument contends. If they didn't approach many new donors, that would boost their overall success rate, because they were focusing on high probability targets, more so than is normal for university fundraisers, giving them an excellent conversion rate. They weren't especially good at picking the apples from the top of the tree, but by focusing on the low hanging fruit, they still had a great success percentage overall.
_________________

GMAT Tutor in Toronto

If you are looking for online GMAT math tutoring, or if you are interested in buying my advanced Quant books and problem sets, please contact me at ianstewartgmat at gmail.com

Kudos [?]: 1951 [15], given: 6

1 KUDOS received
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 08 Nov 2008
Posts: 298

Kudos [?]: 243 [1], given: 7

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

Show Tags

New post 30 Dec 2008, 22:43
1
This post received
KUDOS
A is the right choice ..
Found Below explnation in test magic and found it to be quite convincing !!
Please weigh the explaination . A , not C

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What do you think it's wrong? Where?


B Clearly weakens the argument.
C If most of the donations by previous donors were unsolicited, then the 80% figure in the argument must be largely comprised of first-time donors. If that is the case, then the fundraisers did, in fact, do a good job (relative to other university fund-raisers), which refutes the argument.
D Weakens.
E Weakens
ANSWER: A If the fund-raisers had average success in securing donations from donors who had never supported Smithtown previously, and that rate of success for that population of donors is generally not so good (which the argument implies), then the 80% figure must be largely comprised of previous donors, which supports the contention of the argument. This is Question 29 in Sets 10 and 19. Be advised that the reference answer in the sets is C. However, I say it's wrong.

By popular demand, I'm going to try to make the case for A one more time. Here is the argument, re-written with A included as a premise. It bolsters one of the arguments assumptions and clearly strengthens the argument:

--Smithtown University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations from 80 percent of the potential donors they contacted. Since the people most likely to donate are those who have donated in the past, good fund-raisers constantly try less-likely prospects in an effort to expand the donor base. However, recent information reveals that Smithtown’s fund-raisers had merely average success in receiving donations from contacts with potential donors who had never donated before. Therefore, this exceptionally high relative success rate actually indicates that they were doing an average job, at best, and reflects insufficient canvassing effort.--
_________________

"CEO in making"

Kudos [?]: 243 [1], given: 7

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 01 Aug 2008
Posts: 118

Kudos [?]: 160 [0], given: 2

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

Show Tags

New post 28 May 2009, 06:02
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.

Pls Explain
_________________

==============================================
Do not answer without sharing the reasoning behind ur choice
-----------------------------------------------------------
Working on my weakness : GMAT Verbal
------------------------------------------------------------
Ask:
Why, What, How, When, Where, Who
==============================================

Kudos [?]: 160 [0], given: 2

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 30 Mar 2009
Posts: 248

Kudos [?]: 196 [0], given: 1

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

Show Tags

New post 28 May 2009, 18:13
IMO C
Argument: This success rate, exceptionally high for university fund-raisers, does not indicate that they were doing a good job
The context here is like this: fund raisers succeed in 8 out of 10 prospect donors whom they contact (who have never donated before), but the majority of donations, for exp 1000 people, are from those who have donated in the past
So, C states the point

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 ->out of scope
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 -->no influence
C. This year most of the donations that came to Smithtown University from people who had previously donated to it were made without the university’s fund-raisers having made any contact with the donors -->the best
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 -->no influence. This is just a restating of the fact
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 -->weaken

Kudos [?]: 196 [0], given: 1

Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 21 Dec 2010
Posts: 625

Kudos [?]: 278 [0], given: 51

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

Show Tags

New post 18 May 2011, 11:07
mbaMission 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 succeedned 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.

Pls Explain


this one was a bouncer for upar cut , got A in 3:31 min .

mark one of the conclusions here ' does not indicate that they were doing a good job now think of a comparison between smithtown univ fundraisers and fundraisers from other univ as stated in A. as frequently as is the clue when A is read carefully, the fundraisers from smithtown univ are compared to fundraisers from other univ , and the criterion is ' success with new fund raisers' . A states ST univ fundraisers were no better than fundraisers from other univ. A supports the argument.

the answer is clear A therefore.

As an after thought i think i should clarify why C is incorrect.

the main conclusion is The high success rate shows insufficient canvassing effort

C states the fund raisers did not contact most of those who donated previously. that means they contacted mostly new potential donors and probably succeeded , hence not insufficient canvassing efforts .this attacks the main conclusion rather than supporting it.
_________________

What is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy.

Kudos [?]: 278 [0], given: 51

Intern
Intern
avatar
Affiliations: IEEE
Joined: 27 Jul 2010
Posts: 19

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 7

Location: Playa Del Rey,CA
WE 1: 2.5 yrs - Medicaid
WE 2: 2 yrs - Higher Ed
Re: Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Jul 2011, 01:15
mbaMission 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.

"less likely prospects" is important here.
Since C says
from people who had previously donated to it were made without the university’s fund-raisers having made any contact with the donors.


So these donors are not the less likely prospects

In A it is mentioned that
contacts with potential donors who had never given before
shows that less likely prospects were contacted but nothing is mentioned of their donation which was the main reason why the fund raiser was held in the first place

Hence IMO A

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 7

1 KUDOS received
Math Forum Moderator
avatar
Joined: 20 Dec 2010
Posts: 1964

Kudos [?]: 2050 [1], given: 376

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

Show Tags

New post 11 Oct 2011, 00:43
1
This post received
KUDOS
greatfriend wrote:
Correct answer is C since this argument twice prove fund raisers passivity.


I ruled out C.

Fact:
80% of the people CONTACTED donated.

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

C says: Fundraiser didn't contact the regular donors because most of them donated voluntarily. This goes against the argument by targeting the assumption in the reasoning of the argument. If regular donors were not contacted so much, then the 80% success rate could only be from the less-likely donors who were actually contacted.
_________________

~fluke

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Kudos [?]: 2050 [1], given: 376

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 10 Jan 2011
Posts: 232

Kudos [?]: 80 [0], given: 25

Location: India
GMAT Date: 07-16-2012
GPA: 3.4
WE: Consulting (Consulting)
Reviews Badge
Re: Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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-------

Kudos [?]: 80 [0], given: 25

Re: Smithtown University s fund-raisers succeeded in getting   [#permalink] 03 Apr 2012, 00:30

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 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®.