Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases https://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 24 May 2017, 17:13

### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

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

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Joined: 31 Oct 2011
Posts: 318
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 999 [1] , given: 18

Smithtown University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Dec 2011, 01:23
1
KUDOS
7
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

26% (02:48) correct 74% (01:57) wrong based on 747 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
If you have any questions
New!
Intern
Joined: 03 Dec 2011
Posts: 7
Followers: 0

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

Re: Smithtown University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Dec 2011, 07:36
The argument claims Smithtown's unusually high success rate in fundraising was due to farming known donors rather than canvassing potential new donors. We are asked to identify support for this argument.

A - States Smithtown fund-raisers were no more successful with new donors than other universities. We can conclude that the majority of their excess success was from known previous donors. This supports the argument and is the correct choice.
B - Average size of donation is outside the scope of argument.
C - Claims most repeat donors were not contacted by the fund-raisers. This is outside the scope of argument, which is about success rates. However, if anything, this would tend to weaken the argument as if there are many repeat donors not contacted, one might assume the fund-raisers were therefore focusing on contacting new donors.
D - Directly weakens the argument.
E - Directly weakens the argument.
Manager
Joined: 25 May 2011
Posts: 153
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 68 [1] , given: 71

Re: Smithtown University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Dec 2011, 07:47
1
KUDOS
Manager
Joined: 31 Mar 2013
Posts: 72
Location: India
GPA: 3.02
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 27 [0], given: 109

Re: Smithtown University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Dec 2013, 09:09
Moderators and experts, kindly help! What is the OA? We have a different OA on this page and on smithtown-university-s-fund-raisers-succeeded-in-getting-78924.html.

THe question is same on both links though.
MBA Section Director
Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Posts: 3652
Location: India
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Marketing (Energy and Utilities)
Followers: 1687

Kudos [?]: 13524 [1] , given: 1905

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

### Show Tags

11 Dec 2015, 22:01
1
KUDOS
Expert's post
22
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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.
_________________
Intern
Joined: 11 Mar 2015
Posts: 19
GPA: 3.4
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 18

Re: #Top150 CR: Smithtown University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Dec 2015, 12:38
Conclusion : This success rate, exceptionally high for university fund-raisers, does not indicate that they were doing a good job. The high success rate shows insufficient canvassing effort.

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. - This can be a contender since good fundraisers constantly try less-likely prospects in an effort to expand the donor base.

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. - If we consider this then the percentage of getting donation would have increased. and fund-raiser would have done good job , which is contradictory

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 is already present in the argument , so with this information we get know only that the fund-raiser did not contact to previous donor ,assuming they would donate this tym too. but this not true.

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. - Weakens the conclusion

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. - This is also weakening the conclusion

So A is better choice here .
Senior Manager
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: 365
Concentration: Marketing, Technology
GMAT 1: 570 Q44 V25
GMAT 2: 600 Q48 V25
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 53 [0], given: 472

Re: #Top150 CR: Smithtown University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Apr 2016, 21:32
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.

I am confused between options C & A

We need to strengthen the conclusion that, This success rate does not indicate that they were doing a good job. The high success rate shows insufficient canvassing effort.

Option C says there is no canvassing as "People previously donated to it were made without the university's fund-raisers having made any contact with the donors"

Please explain where my reasoning wrong & how option A correct
_________________

"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!!

Senior Manager
Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Posts: 309
Location: India
Concentration: Social Entrepreneurship, General Management
GMAT 1: 690 Q49 V34
GPA: 2.8
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 160

Re: #Top150 CR: Smithtown University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Apr 2016, 01:34
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.

I am confused between options C & A

We need to strengthen the conclusion that, This success rate does not indicate that they were doing a good job. The high success rate shows insufficient canvassing effort.

Option C says there is no canvassing as "People previously donated to it were made without the university's fund-raisers having made any contact with the donors"

Please explain where my reasoning wrong & how option A correct

C is out of scope.
The argument in question is about people "potential donors they contacted".
C talks about people who gave donation without the university contacting them.
Senior Manager
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: 365
Concentration: Marketing, Technology
GMAT 1: 570 Q44 V25
GMAT 2: 600 Q48 V25
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 53 [1] , given: 472

Re: #Top150 CR: Smithtown University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 May 2016, 01:56
1
KUDOS
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!
_________________

"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!!

Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 02 Aug 2009
Posts: 4512
Followers: 394

Kudos [?]: 4190 [0], given: 109

Re: #Top150 CR: Smithtown University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 May 2016, 02:29
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
_________________

Absolute modulus :http://gmatclub.com/forum/absolute-modulus-a-better-understanding-210849.html#p1622372
Combination of similar and dissimilar things : http://gmatclub.com/forum/topic215915.html

Manager
Joined: 09 Oct 2015
Posts: 79
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 8

Re: #Top150 CR: Smithtown University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 May 2016, 03:59
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

REGARDING CHOICE A),

how can we assume that only 20 percent of new donors have donated?
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10371
Followers: 997

Kudos [?]: 224 [0], given: 0

Re: Smithtown University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Jun 2016, 06:32
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
Intern
Joined: 02 Sep 2016
Posts: 48
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 27 [7] , given: 130

Re: #Top150 CR: Smithtown University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Oct 2016, 13:44
7
KUDOS
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
Manager
Joined: 27 Aug 2015
Posts: 98
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 80

Re: #Top150 CR: Smithtown University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Oct 2016, 01:24
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
Verbal Expert
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 3041
Location: Germany
Schools: HHL Leipzig
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
Followers: 513

Kudos [?]: 2265 [4] , given: 22

Re: #Top150 CR: Smithtown University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Oct 2016, 09:50
4
KUDOS
Expert's post
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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

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.)
Intern
Joined: 24 Jan 2017
Posts: 4
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 2

Re: #Top150 CR: Smithtown University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Jan 2017, 23:28
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?
Verbal Expert
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 3041
Location: Germany
Schools: HHL Leipzig
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
Followers: 513

Kudos [?]: 2265 [1] , given: 22

Re: #Top150 CR: Smithtown University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Jan 2017, 06:48
1
KUDOS
Expert's post
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.
Intern
Joined: 15 Nov 2016
Posts: 10
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Accounting
GMAT 1: 620 Q44 V31
GMAT 2: 680 Q47 V35
GPA: 3.1
WE: Analyst (Investment Banking)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 39

Re: #Top150 CR: Smithtown University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Jan 2017, 13:15
Option A states that the fundraisers from the subject university were as successful as those from other universities in bagging donations from first-time donors. However, if this option is correct, aren't we assuming that the fundraisers of the other universities haven't performed their best since we arrive at a conclusion that Smithtown's students haven't performed best after comparison?

Is it ok to make this assumption for this argument or am I missing something?
Verbal Expert
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 3041
Location: Germany
Schools: HHL Leipzig
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
Followers: 513

Kudos [?]: 2265 [0], given: 22

Re: #Top150 CR: Smithtown University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Jan 2017, 03:56
NitinCFA2017 wrote:
Option A states that the fundraisers from the subject university were as successful as those from other universities in bagging donations from first-time donors. However, if this option is correct, aren't we assuming that the fundraisers of the other universities haven't performed their best since we arrive at a conclusion that Smithtown's students haven't performed best after comparison?

Is it ok to make this assumption for this argument or am I missing something?

Option A indicates that Smithtown students are as successful as students of other colleges in case of clients who did not donate before. The main passage states that the Smithtown students have exceptionally high success rate (i.e. much higher than students of other colleges). These two facts indicate that Smithtown students spent much of their effort with easy customers who have already donated rather than difficult ones who have never donated. This indicates a lack of canvassing effort. So whether the students of other colleges has done well (in getting donations from approached clients) is not relevant. The argument is about canvassing ( i.e. approaching new clients), not getting donations from approached clients.

In summary, option A just implies that much effort was put by Smithtown students in easy clients, which could have been diverted to difficult ones.
Manager
Joined: 17 Apr 2016
Posts: 94
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 248

Re: #Top150 CR: Smithtown University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Mar 2017, 19:33
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."?
Re: #Top150 CR: Smithtown University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting   [#permalink] 13 Mar 2017, 19:33

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 23 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
8 QOTD : Smithtown University’s fund-raisers succeeded 6 05 May 2017, 09:40
3 #Top150 CR: In a survey of all 14,000 undergraduates in a University 6 15 Jan 2016, 04:15
3 #Top150 CR: Farmers get water at subsidized rates 6 17 Oct 2015, 04:32
10 #Top150 CR: A veterinary pharmaceutical manufacturer implemented 9 22 Feb 2016, 06:29
Smithtown University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting 0 23 Jun 2016, 06:32
Display posts from previous: Sort by