Smithtown University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations

Question

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

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

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

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

(C) This year most of the donations that came to Smithtown University from people who had previously donated to it were made without the university’s fund-raisers having made any contact with the donors.

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

(E) More than half of the money raised by Smithtown University’s fund-raisers came from donors who had never previously donated to the university.

Show SpoilerWhy ?

Option C is out of scope: refer other forums : https://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/cr- ... t8037.html

IanStewart · Accepted Answer

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.

GMATNinja · Answer

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

Great, and what’s the evidence to support this conclusion? Well, we know that fund-raisers have succeeded in getting donations from 80% of the potential donors they contacted, and “since the people most likely to donate are those who have donated in the past, good fund-raisers constantly try less-likely prospects in an effort to expand the donor base.”

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

On to the answer choices:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So (A) is our winner!

@p00rv@ · Answer

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

ChiranjeevSingh · Answer

Introduction  : This is an amazing question with probably the lowest accuracy among all official CR questions. Only 25% of people who attempt this question on GMAT Club get it right, and given my experience discussing this question with my students, I believe that even among people who get this question right, most don’t get it right for the right reasons. Given this background, I’ll probably err on the side of explaining more rather than explaining less in the solution below.

The Story

Smithtown University’s fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations from 80 percent of the potential donors they contacted.   - STU’s FRs got donations from 80% of the potential donors they contacted i.e. for every 100 people they contacted, they got donations from 80 people.

This success rate, exceptionally high for university fund-raisers, does not indicate that they were doing a good job.   - The non-essential modifier “exceptionally high for university fund-raisers” says that the 80% success rate is very very high for university FRs (That means normally, FRs have a much lower success rate).

This high success rate doesn’t mean that FRs were doing a good job. (Interesting! How can such a high success rate not mean 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 people most likely to donate are the people who have donated in the past. (That looks reasonable. Once a person makes a donation to a university, he may be more willing to donate again since he sees value in donating money to the university)

Since old donors have a high propensity to donate again, good FRs constantly try less-likely prospects (i.e. new donors) to expand the donor base.

(This statement makes sense, but how is it connected with the previous statement? The previous statement said that a high success rate indicates STU’s FRs didn’t do a good job, and this statement says good FRs constantly try less probable prospects. Ohh! The author is assuming that a high success rate of STU’s FRs is due to the reason that they didn’t contact the less-likely prospects i.e. new donors. The author thinks that STU’s FRs got a high success rate because they kept on contacting the old donors, who were very likely to donate.)

(I observe that many people don’t pause to connect a statement back to the previous statement. They keep on reading, hoping things will automatically connect. This works most of the time since we can understand most of the things naturally. However, things that we can’t understand ‘naturally’ need to be understood deliberately. So, you need to pay attention to whether you understand the relationship between a statement and its previous one. If you don’t, take a pause and try to understand. There’s no point rushing to get a question wrong!)

The high success rate shows insufficient canvassing effort.   - This statement flows from the previous statement. In other words, this statement is supported by the previous statement. And this statement supports the second statement.

Why a high success rate doesn’t indicate that STU’s FRs were doing a good job? Because this high success rate shows insufficient canvassing effort.

GIST   : The high success rate doesn’t indicate that STU’s FRs were doing a good job. Why? Because the high success rate shows insufficient canvassing effort. Why? Because good FRs constantly try less probable prospects.

The Gap

Since there are two levels of ‘whys’, there are two jumps/gaps in the argument:

1. From “ Good FRs constantly try less probable prospects ” to “ The high success rate shows insufficient canvassing effort “

This gap is so subtle that it doesn’t look like a gap. It seems that one can infer from a high success rate of an FR that he must have made insufficient canvassing effort. However, there are two levels of gaps here:

(1) Are these STU FR’s average guys? What if these guys are overly adept at converting potential donors? In such a case, they might have a high success rate even though they may have contacted a lot of new donors. In such a case, their high success rate will not indicate that they did not contact new donors. Probably, they contacted a lot of new donors and were talented enough to convert a very high percentage of them.

(2) Let’s accept that they didn’t contact a lot of new donors. Can we now say that their high success rate shows  insufficient canvassing effort ? Not necessarily. What if these people deliberately contacted a smaller set of new donors but made a lot more effort per donor to convert the donor. That’s why they had a high success rate. In such a case, they contacted fewer donors but made  more effort per donor . So, we won’t be able to say that their high success rate shows insufficient canvassing effort.

2. From “ The high success rate shows insufficient canvassing effort ” to “ The high success rate doesn’t indicate that STU’s FRs were doing a good job “

Is there a jump here? Is it possible that even though the high success rate shows insufficient canvassing effort, we still can’t say that the high success rate doesn’t indicate that STU’s FR’s were doing a good job?

It is possible if the job of FRs includes more than just “canvassing”. Let’s say that the job of FRs also includes preparing canvassing material and shortlisting probable new donors. In such a case, FRs may not have made sufficient canvassing effort, but if they did a lot of good work in preparing canvassing material or shortlisting new donors, we can’t say that they did not do a good job! Right?

The Goal

We are looking for an option that most strengthens the argument. Any option that addresses the gaps identified above can be a valid strengthener.

The Evaluation

(A)   Correct.   The sentence compares the success rate of STU’s FRs and of FRs from other universities.* Success rate w.r.t. what? W.r.t. converting new donors. The sentence says that STU’s FRs had about the same success rate as FRs from other universities.

Oh! So, these STU guys are just like others; these people are not super-talented. Now, if we go back to the first gap identified above, we can see that this option eliminates a loophole in the argument. If STU FRs are just like others and thus are not overly talented, then their high (overall) success rate is likely due to the fact that they mainly contacted old donors and not the new donors and thus made insufficient canvassing effort.

*If you have trouble understanding this statement, I’ve shared a video at the end of this solution in which I share how I read options A, B, and C.

(B)   Incorrect  . This option compares the average size of the donations to STU from two kinds of donors:

1. New donors whom STU’s FRs contacted
2. Old donors

The option says that the average size of the donation from the first kind of donors was greater than the average size of the donations from the old donors.

Many people reject this option, saying that the argument doesn’t talk about the average size of donations and that thus this option is out of scope. The logic is completely wrong since a strengthener always provides new information. The reason why people don’t realize the incorrectness of this logic is that they apply this logic inconsistently. If they applied this logic consistently on every option, they’d realize that many correct options can also be rejected for this reason. Rather, even option A can be rejected on the grounds that the argument nowhere talks about fundraisers from other universities.

This option is a mild weakener since if the new donors donated a lot of money, then probably STU FRs did a good job. Probably, FRs spent  more effort per donor  to extract more money out of every donor. In such a case, they probably made sufficient canvassing effort – not in terms of contacting a lot of new donors but in terms of extracting more money from every new donor.

A bit bigger nuance now. The reason I say that this option is a ‘mild’ weakener is that the comparison presented in this option could be a constant factor. I mean to say that it is entirely possible that new donors always donate, on average, more than old donors. It is possible that every new donor donates a large amount for the first time and then donate a small amount every year. In such a case, the information presented in option B doesn’t tell us anything special about STU’s FRs.

(C)   Incorrect  . More than 60% of people mark this option on GMAT Club! This option says that most of the donations to STU from old donors came without FRs contacting those donors. So, these old donors donated on their own without any contact from FRs.

Many people think that this option means that most of the donations to STU came without any contact from FRs. That means that these FRs are useless. They are getting less than 50% of the donations; the majority of the donations are coming on their own. Well, these people miss the modifier ‘ who had previously donated to it’ . Thus, this option is not talking about most of the donations; it’s talking about most of the donations from old donors.

This option can also be a mild weakener since it can be taken to indicate that STU’s FRs did not contact many old donors. In such a case, they likely contacted more new donors. Thus, the argument gets weakened.

Again, I say that this is a ‘mild’ weakener since, like option B, this option can also be a constant factor. It is entirely possible that every year, the majority of donations from old donors come without any canvassing. In such a case, this option doesn’t tell us anything special about STU’s FRs.

(D)   Incorrect  . This option says that the majority of the donations to STU came from new donors. This option, thus, weakens the argument.

However, this option also suffers from the possibility that this could also be a constant factor. It is possible that every year, 60% of the donations come from new donors. So, getting a majority of the donations from new donors is nothing special. A good weakener would be an option that compares the performance of FRs this year with the general performance of FRs. For example:

A greater than usual proportion 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)   Incorrect  . This option says that most of the money raised by STU’s FRs came from new donors. This option, thus, weakens the argument.

However, this option also suffers from the possibility that this could also be a constant factor. It is possible that every year, 60% of the raised money comes from new donors. So, getting most of the money from new donors is nothing special. A good weakener would be an option that compares the performance of FRs this year with the general performance of FRs. For example:

A greater than usual proportion of the money raised by Smithtown University’s fund-raisers came from donors who had never given to the university before.
  
If you have any doubts regarding any part of this solution, please feel free to ask.

Here’s the video in which I explain how to understand options A, B, and C:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQ3vlkUuiZ4

- CJ

PS: This solution was originally posted on  this link .

tenaman10 · Answer

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.--

debaratidg · Answer

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.

(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.

(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.

rakaisraka · Answer

Hi SayantanC - can you please explain how A is correct.

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

sayantanc2k · Answer

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

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

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

(In a way the passage implies that a low success rate is an indication of proper effort.)

abhimahna · Answer

The argument is saying fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations from 80% of people they contacted.

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

Assumption: They contacted both the new and old donors.

We need to strengthen this.

(A) Smithtown University’s fund-raisers were successful in their contacts with potential donors who had never given before about as frequently as were fund-raisers for other universities in their contacts with such people.  --> So, this is clearly telling us they contacted both types of donors. Hence, as per our assumption. Strengthener.

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

(C) This year most of the donations that came to Smithtown University from people who had previously donated to it were made without the university’s fund-raisers having made any contact with the donors.  --> A TRAP. It is saying money came without contacting. But we are talking about success rate after contacting. So, this option is incorrect.

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

(E) More than half of the money raised by Smithtown University’s fund-raisers came from donors who had never previously donated to the university.  Same as B

warriorguy · Answer

Wow. A tough question. I would like to present my reasoning:

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

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

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

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

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

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

(C) This year most of the donations that came to Smithtown University from people who had previously donated to it were made without the university’s fund-raisers having made any contact with the donors.

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

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

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

(E) More than half of the money raised by Smithtown University’s fund-raisers came from donors who had never previously donated to the university.

It could be that few users donated huge sum. Doesn't mean that donor base increased. Incorrect .

BillyZ · Answer

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

GMATNinja · Answer

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

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

Does that help?

mihir0710 · Answer

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.

mikemcgarry · Answer

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 :-)

adkikani · Answer

Hi Experts  GMATNinja   GMATNinjaTwo 
Can you elaborate contrast in the sentence starting with: In the contrary ...

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

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

GMATNinja · Answer

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

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

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

gmatexam439 · Answer

Hi  GMATNinja ,

Could you please throw some light on my below doubt:

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

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

Regards

GMATNinja · Answer

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

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

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

I hope that helps!

ExpertsGlobal5 · Answer

Dear Friends,

Here is the detailed explanation to this question-

Mind-map:  Donations received from 80% people contacted → high conversion rate = fewer new donors contacted → inefficient canvassing methods

Missing link:  Between high donor conversion rate and inefficient canvassing methods.

Expectation from the correct answer choice:  To strengthen that canvassing methods were inefficient regardless of high donor conversion.

Choice A:  This answer choice makes the point that Smithtown’s fundraising efforts showed the same amount of success in converting new potential donors as did most other university fundraising efforts; if the overall 80% success rate is unusually high for fundraising campaigns, then one can conclude that most donations were received from individuals who had also donated previously, as the magnitude of donations from new donors is the same as that obtained by most other university fundraisers; it is clear that the unusually high success rate is dependent on donations from donors who had also contributed previously, and that the number of new potential donors contacted by Smithtown’s fundraising campaign was low, pointing to the inefficiency of the campaign; as this strengthens the argument that Smithtown’s canvassing methods were inefficient regardless of high donor conversion, it is the correct answer choice.
 Choice B:  This answer choice makes the point that donations from new donors were larger than those from donors who had given to the university previously as well; it undermines the argument advanced in the question by establishing that Smithtown’s fundraising was able to secure larger donations from new donors, and is, therefore, an incorrect answer choice.
 Choice C:  This answer choice is irrelevant, as it makes it clear that individuals who donated to this year’s fundraiser and had also donated previously, had not been contacted by the fundraising campaign for the current year in the first place; thereby, it places these donations outside the purview of the fundraising campaign being discussed; it is, therefore, an incorrect answer choice that does not address the passage’s argument at all.
 Choice D:  This answer choice undermines the argument advanced in the question by highlighting that the magnitude of donations received from new donors was larger than that of donations received from donors who had also contributed in previous years; it is, therefore, an incorrect answer choice.
 Choice E:  This answer choice highlights that the majority of donations generated by the current year’s fundraising program were from new donors, signifying that Smithtown’s fundraising campaign was efficient in contacting new potential donors; as this answer choice weakens the argument, it is an incorrect answer choice.

Hence, A is the best answer choice.

To understand the concept of “Characteristics of a Strengthening Statement on GMAT Critical Reasoning,” you may want to watch the following video (~4 minutes):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwySIJBWPX0

All the best!
Experts' Global Team

Smithtown University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Smithtown University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia