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

It is currently 16 Nov 2018, 10:16

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 in November
PrevNext
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
28293031123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
2526272829301
Open Detailed Calendar
  • Free GMAT Strategy Webinar

     November 17, 2018

     November 17, 2018

     07:00 AM PST

     09:00 AM PST

    Nov. 17, 7 AM PST. Aiming to score 760+? Attend this FREE session to learn how to Define your GMAT Strategy, Create your Study Plan and Master the Core Skills to excel on the GMAT.
  • GMATbuster's Weekly GMAT Quant Quiz # 9

     November 17, 2018

     November 17, 2018

     09:00 AM PST

     11:00 AM PST

    Join the Quiz Saturday November 17th, 9 AM PST. The Quiz will last approximately 2 hours. Make sure you are on time or you will be at a disadvantage.

Southington University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations f

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

Hide Tags

Current Student
User avatar
B
Joined: 20 Jan 2015
Posts: 50
Reviews Badge
Southington University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations f  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 01 Aug 2016, 09:48
4
13
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  55% (hard)

Question Stats:

67% (02:09) correct 33% (02:09) wrong based on 609 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Southington University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations from 80 percent of the potential donors they contacted this year. This rate would be the expected rate if the only potential donors contacted were those who have donated in the past. But good fund-raisers constantly contact less likely prospects in an effort to expand the donor base. Thus the high success rate, far from showing that the fund-raisers did a good job, shows insufficient canvassing effort.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

(A) Among potential donors contacted by Southington University's fund-raisers, the majority of those who did not make donations were people who had made donations to the university in the past.
(B) The amount of money raised by Southington University's fundraisers this year was lower than the amount they had raised in any of the previous several years.
(C) Individual donations made to Southington University this year were, on average, slightly larger than were average individual donations made to many other universities.
(D) Fund-raisers contacting past donors are not only to get new donations but also to get names of potential new donors to contact.
(E) The majority of the donations that fund-raisers succeeded in getting for Southington University were from who had never given to the university before.

_________________

Please take a moment to hit Kudos if you like my post :)


Originally posted by WaitingSurprises on 31 Jul 2016, 12:21.
Last edited by WaitingSurprises on 01 Aug 2016, 09:48, edited 2 times in total.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 10 Dec 2014
Posts: 39
Location: India
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Operations
Schools: ISB '17
GPA: 4
WE: Operations (Consulting)
Re: Southington University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations f  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 Jul 2016, 18:28
Conclusion:- the high success rate, far from showing that the fund-raisers did a good job, shows insufficient canvassing effort.

A. Among potential donors contacted by Southington University's fund-raisers, the majority of those who did not make donations were people who had made donations to the university in the past.
-- how many donors they had contacted , we have to make multiple assumptions to relate this statement to conclusion
B. The amount of money raised by Southington University's fundraisers this year was lower than the amount they had raised in any of the previous several years. -- Irrelevant
C. Individual donations made to Southington University this year were, on average, slightly larger than were average individual donations made to many other universities. -- Irrelevant
D. Fund-raisers contacting past donors are not only to get new donations but also to get names of potential new donors to contact. -- so what ? getting new contacts doesnt mean they are successful or unsuccessful ?
E. The majority of the donations that fund-raisers succeeded in getting for Southington University were from who had never given to the university before.
-- majority of donations ( focussed part ) come from new people i.e, their canvassing effort is good and thus weakens conclusion

IMO . E
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 11 Feb 2014
Posts: 2
Concentration: Technology, Strategy
GPA: 3.59
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Reviews Badge
Re: Southington University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations f  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 Jul 2016, 23:20
3
Argument : the high success rate shows insufficient canvassing effort of fund raiser.

From options A & E :

A. Among potential donors contacted by Southington University's fund-raisers, the majority of those who did not make donations were people who had made donations to the university in the past.
--> Let take number :
Fun raiser contact 100 people consist of (let say) :
- 95 people who had made donations to the university in the past, and
- 5 people new potential donors

* 20 people who did not give donation are :
- 15 people who had made donations to the university in the past, and
- 5 people new potential donors.
So, the majority of those who did not make donations were people who had made donations to the university in the past (in this case 15 people).

* 80 people who gave donations had made donations to the university in the past.

--> This mean, majority of donation came from past donors --> show less effort of fund raiser.


E. The majority of the donations that fund-raisers succeeded in getting for Southington University were from who had never given to the university before.
--> let take number : let say 100 people give donations.
so, we could refer that the argument state that 80 people give donation.

Option E said that majority of donations come from people who had never give it before.
So, we can say :
- minimun new donors to meet this statement are 41 people, and
- maximum old donors who had made donations to the university in the past are 39.

--> it's mean fund raiser try to contact at least 41 new donors or 41 Percent of all potential donors contact.


Answer : E


Hope it's clear.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 02 Mar 2012
Posts: 315
Schools: Schulich '16
Re: Southington University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations f  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Aug 2016, 00:07
IMO E

why its not A?
A says : Among potential donors contacted by Southington University's fund-raisers, the majority of those who did not make donations were people who had made donations to the university in the past.

the evidence the argument provides is :
But good fund-raisers constantly contact less likely prospects in an effort to expand the donor base.
and thus then the conclusion:
Thus the high success rate, far from showing that the fund-raisers did a good job, shows insufficient canvassing effort.

So, if A says the fund raisers contacted the same persons for donations this time also, but now they didn't donate.This statement still validates the conclusion that the fund raisers showed insufficient canvassing effort

E shows that they contacted and were able to, weakening the conclusion.

Hope it helps
Intern
Intern
User avatar
G
Joined: 25 Aug 2015
Posts: 42
Reviews Badge
Southington University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations f  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 20 Aug 2018, 10:51
Argument's conclusion --> Fund-raisers did a bad job as they have NOT contacted the less likely prospects.

Objective --> To weaken the conclusion.

Why "A" is wrong? --> It supports the conclusion. This option states that fund-raisers failed to get donations even from the most likely prospects (i.e. potential donors who had donated in the past).

Why "E" is right? --> It's the required weakener. This options states the fund-raisers managed to get majority of the donations from the least likely prospects (i.e. potential donors who had NOT donated in the past).


ritikk13 wrote:
Southington University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations from 80 percent of the potential donors they contacted this year. This rate would be the expected rate if the only potential donors contacted were those who have donated in the past. But good fund-raisers constantly contact less likely prospects in an effort to expand the donor base. Thus the high success rate, far from showing that the fund-raisers did a good job, shows insufficient canvassing effort.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

A. Among potential donors contacted by Southington University's fund-raisers, the majority of those who did not make donations were people who had made donations to the university in the past.
B. The amount of money raised by Southington University's fundraisers this year was lower than the amount they had raised in any of the previous several years.
C. Individual donations made to Southington University this year were, on average, slightly larger than were average individual donations made to many other universities.
D. Fund-raisers contacting past donors are not only to get new donations but also to get names of potential new donors to contact.
E. The majority of the donations that fund-raisers succeeded in getting for Southington University were from who had never given to the university before.

OA to follow.
Can someone explain choices A and E here.

_________________

** When even your best effort fails, do you back down from chasing your dreams ??? **


Originally posted by XavierAlexander on 01 Aug 2016, 00:51.
Last edited by XavierAlexander on 20 Aug 2018, 10:51, edited 1 time in total.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
G
Joined: 27 Dec 2016
Posts: 239
Concentration: Marketing, Social Entrepreneurship
GPA: 3.65
WE: Marketing (Education)
Premium Member Reviews Badge
Southington University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations f  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Oct 2017, 08:20
2
WaitingSurprises wrote:
Southington University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations from 80 percent of the potential donors they contacted this year. This rate would be the expected rate if the only potential donors contacted were those who have donated in the past. But good fund-raisers constantly contact less likely prospects in an effort to expand the donor base. Thus the high success rate, far from showing that the fund-raisers did a good job, shows insufficient canvassing effort.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

(A) Among potential donors contacted by Southington University's fund-raisers, the majority of those who did not make donations were people who had made donations to the university in the past.
(B) The amount of money raised by Southington University's fundraisers this year was lower than the amount they had raised in any of the previous several years.
(C) Individual donations made to Southington University this year were, on average, slightly larger than were average individual donations made to many other universities.
(D) Fund-raisers contacting past donors are not only to get new donations but also to get names of potential new donors to contact.
(E) The majority of the donations that fund-raisers succeeded in getting for Southington University were from who had never given to the university before.


Conclusion : we have lazy fund raisers, did not do a good job!

Our job is to find evidence that they are DILIGENT fund-raisers!.

(A) Among potential donors contacted by Southington University's fund-raisers, the majority of those who did not make donations were people who had made donations to the university in the past. Doesn't give info about lazy or diligent. Not sufficient info, incorrect.

(B) The amount of money raised by Southington University's fundraisers this year was lower than the amount they had raised in any of the previous several years. This strengthens - if the amount of money related to COUNT people who donate..

(C) Individual donations made to Southington University this year were, on average, slightly larger than were average individual donations made to many other universities.
Who cares :lol:

(D) Fund-raisers contacting past donors are not only to get new donations but also to get names of potential new donors to contact. One-million question : Do they contact that new names? Or just "nice to have"?

(E) The majority of the donations that fund-raisers succeeded in getting for Southington University were from who had never given to the university before.[/quote]
Ahaaa! They are not lazy! They give the best effort to reach as many people!

Hope it helps.
_________________

There's an app for that - Steve Jobs.

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 08 Jul 2016
Posts: 18
CAT Tests
Re: Southington University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations f  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Oct 2017, 18:52
septwibowo wrote:
WaitingSurprises wrote:
Southington University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations from 80 percent of the potential donors they contacted this year. This rate would be the expected rate if the only potential donors contacted were those who have donated in the past. But good fund-raisers constantly contact less likely prospects in an effort to expand the donor base. Thus the high success rate, far from showing that the fund-raisers did a good job, shows insufficient canvassing effort.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

(A) Among potential donors contacted by Southington University's fund-raisers, the majority of those who did not make donations were people who had made donations to the university in the past.
(B) The amount of money raised by Southington University's fundraisers this year was lower than the amount they had raised in any of the previous several years.
(C) Individual donations made to Southington University this year were, on average, slightly larger than were average individual donations made to many other universities.
(D) Fund-raisers contacting past donors are not only to get new donations but also to get names of potential new donors to contact.
(E) The majority of the donations that fund-raisers succeeded in getting for Southington University were from who had never given to the university before.


Conclusion : we have lazy fund raisers, did not do a good job!

Our job is to find evidence that they are DILIGENT fund-raisers!.

(A) Among potential donors contacted by Southington University's fund-raisers, the majority of those who did not make donations were people who had made donations to the university in the past. Doesn't give info about lazy or diligent. Not sufficient info, incorrect.

(B) The amount of money raised by Southington University's fundraisers this year was lower than the amount they had raised in any of the previous several years. This strengthens - if the amount of money related to COUNT people who donate..

(C) Individual donations made to Southington University this year were, on average, slightly larger than were average individual donations made to many other universities.
Who cares :lol:

(D) Fund-raisers contacting past donors are not only to get new donations but also to get names of potential new donors to contact. One-million question : Do they contact that new names? Or just "nice to have"?

(E) The majority of the donations that fund-raisers succeeded in getting for Southington University were from who had never given to the university before.

Ahaaa! They are not lazy! They give the best effort to reach as many people!

Hope it helps.[/quote]



I thought that Southington University's fund-raisers never contacted new donors as it is given in the premise that they achieved 80% success rate and this could have been possible only if those contacted were all previous donors. what am i missing here?
Manager
Manager
User avatar
G
Joined: 27 Dec 2016
Posts: 239
Concentration: Marketing, Social Entrepreneurship
GPA: 3.65
WE: Marketing (Education)
Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: Southington University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations f  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Oct 2017, 22:55
Hi manishcmu , I try to help. Can you please highlight where the argument contains premise as you said?
_________________

There's an app for that - Steve Jobs.

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 08 Jul 2016
Posts: 18
CAT Tests
Re: Southington University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations f  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Oct 2017, 23:22
septwibowo wrote:
Hi manishcmu , I try to help. Can you please highlight where the argument contains premise as you said?



I reasoned the above from first two sentences - Southington University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations from 80 percent of the potential donors they contacted this year. This rate would be the expected rate if the only potential donors contacted were those who have donated in the past

I thought that 80% could be reached only if all donors they contacted were donors previously. for example - if they contacted 100 donors then 80 donors could have contributed only if all 100 had donated previously.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
G
Joined: 27 Dec 2016
Posts: 239
Concentration: Marketing, Social Entrepreneurship
GPA: 3.65
WE: Marketing (Education)
Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: Southington University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations f  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Oct 2017, 04:57
manishcmu wrote:
septwibowo wrote:
Hi manishcmu , I try to help. Can you please highlight where the argument contains premise as you said?



I reasoned the above from first two sentences - Southington University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations from 80 percent of the potential donors they contacted this year. This rate would be the expected rate if the only potential donors contacted were those who have donated in the past

I thought that 80% could be reached only if all donors they contacted were donors previously. for example - if they contacted 100 donors then 80 donors could have contributed only if all 100 had donated previously.


I don't know whether my understanding correct.

This rate would be the expected rate if the only potential donors contacted were those who have donated in the past
OR if the only potential donors contacted were those who have donated in the past, this rate would be the expected rate.

This is hypothetical sentence, different with the actual situation. So.. well.. you cannot say that Southington University's fund-raisers never contacted new donors

Option E doesn't break any premise here.
_________________

There's an app for that - Steve Jobs.

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 04 Dec 2016
Posts: 23
Location: India
GMAT 1: 710 Q50 V35
GPA: 4
Re: Southington University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations f  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Oct 2017, 23:44
manishcmu wrote:


I reasoned the above from first two sentences - Southington University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations from 80 percent of the potential donors they contacted this year. This rate would be the expected rate if the only potential donors contacted were those who have donated in the past

I thought that 80% could be reached only if all donors they contacted were donors previously. for example - if they contacted 100 donors then 80 donors could have contributed only if all 100 had donated previously.


Hi
Let me try

manishcmu wrote:

I thought that 80% could be reached only if all donors they contacted were donors previously.


Here is the Flaw in reasoning
The statement means that you have STRICTLY assumed that the donors were from PREVIOUS donors. However, the argument gives a hint or only prompts that IF the 80% is from Previous Donors, then it is not a big deal. It does not explicitly states that WHAT IF the 80% is reached from POTENTIAL+NEW DONORS...then this 80% will be great.

So you need to keep your view open to both the case

Let me convert it into Real World Case

You: My university got 80% of the total donors they called
Me: So what?? This was expected. You haven't done anything great.
You: Y :o ...It is 80% conversion
Me: These donors are the people who have always donated each year to your university.
The achievement will be if you can convert people who have never donated you in past.

So now you need to show me that these DONORS were new ones and E does this.

Hope this helps
Regards
S
Manager
Manager
User avatar
S
Joined: 01 Nov 2017
Posts: 95
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V35
GMAT 2: 640 Q49 V28
GMAT 3: 680 Q47 V36
GMAT 4: 700 Q50 V35
CAT Tests
Southington University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations f  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Aug 2018, 09:30
This passage was so hard to understand. It uses a fairly complicated way to describe the reasonings that I, as a non-native speaker, find very hard to grasp. For example: "But good fundraisers constantly contact less likely prospects in an effort to expand the donor base." I thought the word "prospects" means the possibility or likelihood, making me understanding the whole sentence as "good fundraisers' constant contact less likely prospect (increase possibility) in an effort to expand the donor base." -> which mean by contacting the donors too frequently the fundraisers are ruining the prospect of expanding the donor base. I understand that the structural grammar would be terrible but without knowing that "prospects" stands for "chosen people," it was indeed hard to understand the meaning.

From this I want to conclude that enriching vocabulary is far more important than one might think. One wrongly understood word can ruin the whole question.
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 10 Aug 2009
Posts: 56
Reviews Badge
Southington University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations f  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Aug 2018, 12:42
Zul99 wrote:
Argument : the high success rate shows insufficient canvassing effort of fund raiser.

From options A & E :

A. Among potential donors contacted by Southington University's fund-raisers, the majority of those who did not make donations were people who had made donations to the university in the past.
--> Let take number :
Fun raiser contact 100 people consist of (let say) :
- 95 people who had made donations to the university in the past, and
- 5 people new potential donors

* 20 people who did not give donation are :
- 15 people who had made donations to the university in the past, and
- 5 people new potential donors.
So, the majority of those who did not make donations were people who had made donations to the university in the past (in this case 15 people).

* 80 people who gave donations had made donations to the university in the past.

--> This mean, majority of donation came from past donors --> show less effort of fund raiser.


E. The majority of the donations that fund-raisers succeeded in getting for Southington University were from who had never given to the university before.
--> let take number : let say 100 people give donations.
so, we could refer that the argument state that 80 people give donation.

Option E said that majority of donations come from people who had never give it before.
So, we can say :
- minimun new donors to meet this statement are 41 people, and
- maximum old donors who had made donations to the university in the past are 39.

--> it's mean fund raiser try to contact at least 41 new donors or 41 Percent of all potential donors contact.


Answer : E


Hope it's clear.


Awesome analysis of choices using numbers +1. It cleared my doubts regarding choice A. Here is my analysis of this question:

Argument construction:
1) Fundraisers succeeded in getting donations from 80% of the donor they contacted.
2) This RATE would be called EXPECTED IF all donors contacted this year are same as past year => 80% success rate on past donors is EXPECTED. (carefully see the hypothetical wording here, would and If >> means author is not sure about this. He is just assuming/speculating)
3) BUT, good FR EXPAND DONOR BASE by contacting new prospective donors. This implies that if new prospective donors are contacted, the success rate will be less than 80%. So if new prospective donors are contacted the success rate (donors donated/donors contacted) will be less than 80%.

Conclusion: 1 )+ 2) +3) => High success rate (80%) SHOWS insufficient canvassing effort.

Evaluation: There is a hidden assumption that all donors contacted were old, what if new donors were indeed contacted and even then, the success rate is 80% OR the new donors donated much more than the old donors. Also, the correct weaken answer should talk about a comparison between old donors and new donors or show some comparison in fundraising efforts with regards to new donors or amount donated by new donors. If it does not do that it is not the correct answer. Only E and A talk address these, rest of the choices are easy to eliminate. B is supporting the argument, C is trap, D is irrelevant.

How to weaken: Show that FR’s contacted many new donors OR the amount donated by new donors were more than donated by old donors.
Let’s us discuss A and E considering the below metric:

A: talks about people who did not donate. This is kind of insufficient statement in data sufficiency questions, it may or may not WEAKEN depending on what was the proportion of donors that were contacted: OLD VS NEW. Since we cannot be sure how many donors were contacted, hence we can eliminate this.

E: This is clearly sufficient to weaken as it directly attacks the MAIN metric (Amount donated by NEW donors/Total amount donated) in which we are interested.
_________________

Retaking gmat for second time, any re-takers please feel free to connect.

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 29 Oct 2017
Posts: 4
Re: Southington University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations f  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Aug 2018, 11:25
What I do not know exactly is why canvassing effort is measured by amount collected (E) and not by people reached, both for new prospects.
I chose (E) because it is the most near answer; however, it does not fulfill the requirements to undermine the argument. I think that for weakening questions, the choice not always has to be 100% foolproof; it only has to make the conclusion less likely to follow.

Sorry if I am overthinking, but GMAT makes people do that.
Hope this helps.
VP
VP
User avatar
P
Status: Learning
Joined: 20 Dec 2015
Posts: 1085
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Marketing
GMAT 1: 670 Q48 V36
GRE 1: Q157 V157
GPA: 3.4
WE: Engineering (Manufacturing)
Reviews Badge
Re: Southington University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations f  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Aug 2018, 21:19
This question was pretty deep filled with confounding and twisted sentences.
Option A can not be the answer.
This simply talks about the majority who did make donations. This sample group can be of any proportion with respect to the total number of people contacted.
The majority who did not make can be more than 50% or less than 50%. This can result in weakening as well as strengthening based on the proportion of the majority.

Posted from my mobile device
_________________

Please give kudos if you found my answers useful

GMAT Club Bot
Re: Southington University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations f &nbs [#permalink] 30 Aug 2018, 21:19
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Southington University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations f

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


Copyright

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| 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®.