Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
19 Feb 2021, 10:14
Kudos
Bookmarks
GMATNinja, AndrewN, AjiteshArun Could please explain the meaning by separating each chunk of option A?
(A) Smithtown University’s fund-raisers were successful in their contacts with potential donors who had never given before about as frequently as were fund-raisers for other universities in their contacts with such people.
Could you please break down the bold part, show the omitted words and do things in order to make the meaning easier?
In this segment," who had never given before" does this part refer to the people who never donated?
(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.
Could you please break down the bold part, show the omitted words and do things in order to make the meaning easier?
In this segment," who had never given before" does this part refer to the people who never donated?
19 Feb 2021, 13:26
Kudos
Bookmarks
sjuniv32
Hello, sjuniv32. (I will admit right off the bat that I spent an unusual 2:32 on this question, one that I had not seen before. I felt good about (A), but I wanted to take the time to feel just as good about eliminating the other options.) Since your question pertains more to the meaning of a specific answer choice, I will stick to that topic.
1) The who clause is restrictive and modifies potential donors, so the group can be thought of as first-time donors to Smithtown University.
2) Fund-raisers from other universities contacted the same potential first-time donors. (Pick it up from fund-raisers.)
3) The fund-raising groups above, both 1 and 2, were about equally successful in persuading first-time donors to give money to their respective universities. ("Were successful... about as frequently as...")
Putting it all together: The fund-raisers at Smithtown University were generally no more successful in getting donations from potential first-time donors than were fund-raisers at other universities.
The language of the answer choices, not just (A), is not the clearest, but in any case, I hope my interpretation of the bold part you drew attention to makes more sense now. Thank you for thinking to ask.
- Andrew
19 Feb 2024, 06:58
Kudos
Bookmarks
Understanding the argument -
Smithtown University’s fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations from 80 percent of the potential donors they contacted. - Fact/Background info.
This success rate, exceptionally high for university fund-raisers, does not indicate that they were doing a good job. - Intermediate conclusion.
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. - Fact. Explains the success criteria for the fund-raisers which is "try less-likely prospects in an effort to expand the donor base."
The high success rate shows insufficient canvassing effort. - Conclusion.
Option Elimination - Strengthen
(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. - If they were average in their success, how can they be exceptional? So the only way they can be exceptional is if they contact the ones who'll donate. Strengthens that "The high success rate shows insufficient canvassing effort."
(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 is comparing " the average size of the donations to Smithtown University from new donors" and "the average size of donations from donors who had given to the university before." Say the average size of donations from the 2 new donors is $1 million and the 2000 old one is $0.7 million. But that doesn't give information about the canvassing effect - how many or what percentage of new ones they contacted. Distortion.
(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. - It's a bit contradictory to the data in the argument. The argument says 80% of the people they contacted donated, leaving 20% whom they contacted but did not donate. This option says that "without the university’s fund-raisers having made any contact with the donors," which is out of scope.
(D) The majority of the donations that fund-raisers succeeded in getting for Smithtown University this year were from donors who had never given to the university before. - Weakener.
(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. - Weakener.
Smithtown University’s fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations from 80 percent of the potential donors they contacted. - Fact/Background info.
This success rate, exceptionally high for university fund-raisers, does not indicate that they were doing a good job. - Intermediate conclusion.
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. - Fact. Explains the success criteria for the fund-raisers which is "try less-likely prospects in an effort to expand the donor base."
The high success rate shows insufficient canvassing effort. - Conclusion.
Option Elimination - Strengthen
(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. - If they were average in their success, how can they be exceptional? So the only way they can be exceptional is if they contact the ones who'll donate. Strengthens that "The high success rate shows insufficient canvassing effort."
(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 is comparing " the average size of the donations to Smithtown University from new donors" and "the average size of donations from donors who had given to the university before." Say the average size of donations from the 2 new donors is $1 million and the 2000 old one is $0.7 million. But that doesn't give information about the canvassing effect - how many or what percentage of new ones they contacted. Distortion.
(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. - It's a bit contradictory to the data in the argument. The argument says 80% of the people they contacted donated, leaving 20% whom they contacted but did not donate. This option says that "without the university’s fund-raisers having made any contact with the donors," which is out of scope.
(D) The majority of the donations that fund-raisers succeeded in getting for Smithtown University this year were from donors who had never given to the university before. - Weakener.
(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. - Weakener.
