It is currently 23 Feb 2018, 14:31

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

#Top150 CR: Smithtown University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting

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

Hide Tags

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 09 Jun 2014
Posts: 7
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Statistics
Schools: Duke '20
GMAT 1: 730 Q50 V37
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: #Top150 CR: Smithtown University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Mar 2017, 03:24
sayantanc2k wrote:
rakaisraka wrote:
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




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.)


has a small doubt here, wouldn't " The success rate of Smiths students with unlikely donors = success rate of other Univ students with unlikely donors (much less than 80% - implied.)" say that they are doing better than the other university student as the conversion rate of unlikely donor is same, where as they have a higher conversion rate for repeating donor. which would imply that canvassing efforts if not good at par with other university.
Expert Post
2 KUDOS received
Verbal Expert
User avatar
G
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 3315
Location: Germany
Schools: HHL Leipzig
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: #Top150 CR: Smithtown University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Mar 2017, 11:32
2
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
adityapareshshah wrote:
sayantanc2k wrote:
tylermmh wrote:
How do you rule out C? If most donors donated without being contacted, then clearly the Smithtown University's fundraisers haven't done a good enough job of expanding their donor base? And this would mean inadequate canvassing effort?


Premise: high success rate
Conclusion: insufficient canvassing effect

The correct option must attack the link between the premise and conclusion. Option C has no relevance to the premise as such (because this option tries to relate not contacting donors with insufficient canvassing effect, whereas the original argument is concerning the relation between high success rate and insufficient canvassing effect). Therefore C is not the correct option.

On the contrary, option C could be a weakening statement. It may imply that the 80% success rate came mostly from donors who did not contribute before. This in turn implies that the sudents actually did a good job contacting new donors and succeeding in getting donations from them.



Option C states:-
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.


So how can we imply "It may imply that the 80% success rate came mostly from donors who did not contribute before."?


Why did you take only a part of option C? Take option C in full and then you would probably realize why C may be weakening:

Option 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 implies that these donations do not constitute a part of the success rate of the fund-raisers (since they were donated without contacting the donors). Thus the rest of the donations (which constitute the 80% success rate of the fund-raisers) may as well ( though not conclusively) comprise of a significant number of donors who did not donate before, indicating in turn proper canvasing effort.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
G
Status: Active
Affiliations: NA
Joined: 23 Oct 2012
Posts: 329
GMAT 1: 590 Q50 V21
GMAT 2: 600 Q48 V25
GMAT 3: 730 Q51 V37
GPA: 3.5
Re: #Top150 CR: Smithtown University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Apr 2017, 03:53
@p00rv@ wrote:
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 ;)


IMO it looks like assuming too much just to prove answer is correct :roll:
_________________

#If you like my post , please encourage me by giving Kudos :)

Expert Post
Director
Director
User avatar
B
Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Posts: 627
Location: India
Re: #Top150 CR: Smithtown University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Jun 2017, 00:37
eybrj2 wrote:
Smithtown University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations from 80 percent of the potential donors they contacted. This success rate, exceptionally high for university fund-raisers, does not indicate that they were doing a good job. On the contrary, since the people most likely to donate are those who have donated in the past, good fundraisers 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 fundraisers 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.

What would strengthen the conclusion is the argument that the success rate is exaggerated compared to what would really expect from a good canvassing. In other words even in a good canvassing one does not get such success rate and if a canvassing gets such high success rate it is not doing the right thing

Only choice A supports this because it shows in reality in the case of donations from unknown people the success rate is pretty much as that of the other universities and that the the fundraisers were more focusing on people who had given before and that is the reason for high success rate but insufficient canvassing
_________________

Srinivasan Vaidyaraman
Sravna
http://www.sravnatestprep.com

Premium Material
Standardized Approaches

Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 26 Jan 2016
Posts: 90
Location: India
GMAT 1: 690 Q49 V36
GPA: 3.01
Reviews Badge
Re: #Top150 CR: Smithtown University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Jun 2017, 09:08
WHY C is not the right answer? any explanation?
Manager
Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 03 May 2017
Posts: 115
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: #Top150 CR: Smithtown University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Jun 2017, 14:02
sriamlan wrote:
WHY C is not the right answer? any explanation?


Hi, looking through the thread will explain why C is wrong. Let me know, if you can't find it.

Best,
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 21 Oct 2009
Posts: 12
Location: India
Schools: XLRI (A)
GMAT 1: 640 Q49 V27
GPA: 2.83
Re: #Top150 CR: Smithtown University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Jan 2018, 19:39
chetan2u wrote:
smartguy595 wrote:
souvik101990 wrote:
Smithtown University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations from 80 percent of the potential donors they contacted. This success rate, exceptionally high for university fund-raisers, does not indicate that they were doing a good job. On the contrary, since the people most likely to donate are those who have donated in the past, good fundraisers 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 fundraisers 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.


Hi chetan,

can you please elaborate how option A strengthens this Argument!


Hi,

lets see the choice 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 fundraisers for other universities in their contacts with such people.

Clearly the lower % would be because of greater canvassing effect..

let me give some numeric values and explain ..


(I) % of OLD donors making payment = 100%
S contacted 100 people and they could get donors from 80 of them..
NOW choice tells us that S could get funds from NEW donors as frequently as OTHERS..
say 25 were new donors and ONLY 20% gave funds-- It is going to be same for S as well as OTHERS..
so S got funds from 75 out of 75 of OLD donors and 5 out of 25 NEW ones..

(II) lets see OTHERS--
now % of donors making payments is less than 80..
say 60%..
we know that OLD donors are more likely in both cases and we have taken it 100% for ease of understanding and the OUTCOME of contact with NEW also has been the same - 20%..
so our equation becomes--
\(\frac{100}{100} *x +(100-x)*\frac{20}{100}= 60\)
so x = 50..
this shows this institute recieved funds from 50 old donors and CONTACTED 50 new donors out of which 10 gave funds.. THUS canvassing effect of this institute was more than S..

similarly lesser the %, more the CANVASSING



Have you inferred in (ii) case that the % of donors making payments has to be compulsorily less than 80% from the premise: "This success rate, exceptionally high for university fund-raisers"... I guess so, and if so, good explanation.
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 10 Oct 2017
Posts: 6
Re: #Top150 CR: Smithtown University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Feb 2018, 14:41
In option C, donations from previous donors without contacting them for donations. This shows that the canvassing efforts were insufficient and only the previous donors donated as the argument says. Am I missing something?
Re: #Top150 CR: Smithtown University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting   [#permalink] 13 Feb 2018, 14:41

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 28 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

#Top150 CR: Smithtown University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting

  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®.