It is currently 18 Nov 2017, 07:15

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

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

3 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 20 Jan 2015
Posts: 59

Kudos [?]: 53 [3], given: 13

Southington University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations f [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 Jul 2016, 13:21
3
This post received
KUDOS
7
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  65% (hard)

Question Stats:

62% (01:41) correct 38% (01:36) wrong based on 256 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.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

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


Last edited by WaitingSurprises on 01 Aug 2016, 10:48, edited 2 times in total.

Kudos [?]: 53 [3], given: 13

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 10 Dec 2014
Posts: 40

Kudos [?]: 36 [0], given: 11

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, 19:28
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

Kudos [?]: 36 [0], given: 11

2 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 11 Feb 2014
Posts: 2

Kudos [?]: 8 [2], given: 194

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 01 Aug 2016, 00:20
2
This post received
KUDOS
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.

Kudos [?]: 8 [2], given: 194

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 02 Mar 2012
Posts: 360

Kudos [?]: 91 [0], given: 4

Schools: Schulich '16
Re: Southington University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations f [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Aug 2016, 01:07
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

Kudos [?]: 91 [0], given: 4

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Status: Always try to face your worst fear because nothing GOOD comes easy. You must be UNCOMFORTABLE to get to your COMFORT ZONE
Joined: 15 Aug 2014
Posts: 354

Kudos [?]: 91 [0], given: 472

Concentration: Marketing, Technology
GMAT 1: 570 Q44 V25
GMAT 2: 600 Q48 V25
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: Southington University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations f [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Aug 2016, 01:32
what's the OA for this question.

A or E?
_________________

"When you want to succeed as bad as you want to breathe, then you’ll be successful.” - Eric Thomas

I need to work on timing badly!!

Kudos [?]: 91 [0], given: 472

Intern
Intern
User avatar
S
Joined: 25 Aug 2015
Posts: 30

Kudos [?]: 27 [0], given: 1517

Re: Southington University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations f [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Aug 2016, 01:51
I think the answer is A.

E is infact giving support to the conclusion.

EXPLANATION:-

The simplified paraphased argument here is:-

(Premise) Donors total count will NOT increase if the university is goning to target past donors only, as good fund-raisers contact less likely donors to increase the total count.
(Assumption) The past donor, FOR SURE, will donate this time also.
------------------------------------->
(Conclusion) Though successful, university's fund raisers did NOT do a good job



A (Paraphased form) -- Many targeted past donors did NOT donate this time.
THIS WEAKENS THE ASSUMED PREMISE AND THE CONCLUSION BREAKS.

E (Paraphased form) -- Majority of CURRENT donors were NOT past donors.
THIS SUPPORTS THE PREMISE (targeting NON past donors WILL increase the total count).




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 ??? **

Kudos [?]: 27 [0], given: 1517

Manager
Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 20 Jan 2015
Posts: 59

Kudos [?]: 53 [0], given: 13

Re: Southington University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations f [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Aug 2016, 07:37
good discussion ! have updated the OA :)
_________________

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

Kudos [?]: 53 [0], given: 13

Manager
Manager
User avatar
S
Joined: 27 Dec 2016
Posts: 175

Kudos [?]: 44 [0], given: 203

Concentration: Social Entrepreneurship, Nonprofit
GPA: 3.65
WE: Sales (Consumer Products)
Premium Member CAT Tests
Southington University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations f [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Oct 2017, 09:20
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.

Kudos [?]: 44 [0], given: 203

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 08 Jul 2016
Posts: 14

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

CAT Tests
Re: Southington University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations f [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Oct 2017, 19:52
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?

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

Manager
Manager
User avatar
S
Joined: 27 Dec 2016
Posts: 175

Kudos [?]: 44 [0], given: 203

Concentration: Social Entrepreneurship, Nonprofit
GPA: 3.65
WE: Sales (Consumer Products)
Premium Member CAT Tests
Re: Southington University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations f [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Oct 2017, 23:55
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.

Kudos [?]: 44 [0], given: 203

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 08 Jul 2016
Posts: 14

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

CAT Tests
Re: Southington University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations f [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Oct 2017, 00:22
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.

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

Manager
Manager
User avatar
S
Joined: 27 Dec 2016
Posts: 175

Kudos [?]: 44 [0], given: 203

Concentration: Social Entrepreneurship, Nonprofit
GPA: 3.65
WE: Sales (Consumer Products)
Premium Member CAT Tests
Re: Southington University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations f [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Oct 2017, 05:57
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.

Kudos [?]: 44 [0], given: 203

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 04 Dec 2016
Posts: 31

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 34

Re: Southington University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations f [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Oct 2017, 00:44
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

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 34

Re: Southington University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations f   [#permalink] 25 Oct 2017, 00:44
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  


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®.