Southington University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations

Question

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?

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.

KarishmaB · Accepted Answer

Fund-raisers got donations from 80% of people they contacted. (So they contacted 100 people and asked them for donation - 80 agreed. We don't know who these 100 people were - how many were new/ how many were old - not known)
80% is the expected conversion rate if only past donors are contacted. 
But good fund-raisers contact less likely prospects (new) to expand the donor base.

Conclusion: High success rate shows insufficient canvassing effort. It seems that the fund raisers contacted only old donors and didn't try to expand the donor base.

The argument is trying to tell us that the 80% conversion rate shows that the fund-raisers contacted only old donors and did not try to expand donor base. So they lacked in effort.

We need to weaken the argument - so we need an option that tells us something like they did contact new potential donors too and were successful in getting them onboard.

(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.

Of the 100, 80 made donations and 20 did not. Of these 20, majority were old donors so say 15 were old donors. This just works well with our conclusion that the fund raisers contacted only the old donors. It doesn't weaken our 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.

Our argument talks about canvassing effort (how many and which people were contacted) and conversion rate of effort. Amount of money raised is not relevant.

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

Again, size of donations is irrelevant. Donor base needed to be expanded.

(D) Fund-raisers contacting past donors are not only to get new donations but also to get names of potential new donors to contact.

Irrelevant how the potential new donor names are obtained.

(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.

So of the 80 people who donated, more than 40 were new donors. So new donors were contacted and donor base was increased. Hence, there may not have been a lack of effort. This weakens the conclusion.

Answer (E)

Zul99 · Answer

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.

babuvgmat · Answer

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

septwibowo · Answer

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

(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.

sahilbhatia21 · Answer

VeritasKarishma

Argument   :  High Success rate (80%) shows --------- Insufficient effort has been made (by contacting More likely prospect past donors)

My reason for eliminating choice A is that the argument overall is concerned about the 80%, from whom the donations have been received, not the other 20% . These 20% do not impact my conclusion on the whole, what would actually strengthen or weaken my conclusion is the Type of donors ( past/new) contacted for those 80% success rate.

Do you think my logic is correct and if it is not, can you explain to to me how those 20% would matter?

KarishmaB · Answer

The 20% matter only to the extent that they give us some information about the type of people who were contacted. Our conclusion is about "insufficient canvassing effort". So it is about the entire 100 who were contacted. So some information about 20 of these may not be completely irrelevant.
e.g.
If we know that all 20 were new people, then we can say that at least some canvassing effort was made to widen the donor base.
If we know that all 20 were old donors, then that gives an idea that perhaps new people were not contacted.

Option (A) tells us that most fo these 20 were old donors so it seems that new people were not contacted (new people are less likely to make contributions so one would expect more of them to be in the 20). This goes well with our conclusion and does not weaken it.

jaisonsunny77 · Answer

Type: weaken the conclusion 
 
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.  -  does not help weaken the 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 to the conclusion drawn.  
 (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 to the conclusion.   
(D) Fund-raisers contacting past donors are not only to get new donations but also to get names of potential new donors to contact.  -  describing the role of a fund-raiser does not help us weaken the conclusion. In fact, such a description is irrelevant.  
(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. - BINGO. if the majority of the donors who contributed this year (and hence major drivers of this year's high success rate) are those people who have never donated before, then (E) would imply that the fund-raisers have contacted lots of potential donors who have never donated before, hence giving reason to weaken the idea that the fund-raisers did not do a sufficient job. Therefore,    (E) is the right answer choice.

PS: If you feel like you need some help with the SC/CR sections of the GMAT, please feel free to DM me.

nikitathegreat · Answer

Please find my comments below for the premise and option choice E

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.

Ans Choice E and last line
Doesn't the last line means that 100 donors had donated in the past out of which 80 donors donated. But option choice E says that majority came from donors that didnt pay last year.

100( donated last year) 100( didnt donate)
80- donated this yr 90 - donated this year
Hence, majority came from donors who didnt donate????

arya251294 · Answer

Isn't option E just talking about donations and not about donors?
What if only 2 new donors were approached and they donated the highest amount?

This would still not help in weakening the conclusion that the canvassing effort was low.
Please help.
 GMATNinja   ExpertsGlobal5

GMATNinja · Answer

In (E), the "majority of the donations" talks about the  number  of donations, not the  amount  of those donations. For instance, if I was running a fundraiser and said that I received 100 "donations," I'm just talking about how  many  people donated, not how  much  they donated.

So, in this question, (E) is telling us that more than half of the people who donated had never given to the university before.

If (E) said something like "most of the money collected" instead of "the majority of the donations," then your scenario might be possible. But as written, (E) tells us that the fund-raisers put effort into expanding the donor base. That's why (E) is the correct answer.

I hope that helps!

Raman109 · Answer

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

We have to weaken the conclusion - the fundraisers didn't do a good job.

Option Elimination -

(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. - If the majority of 20% are the ones who made donations in the past at best it strengthens the conclusion that the fundraisers only contacted the people who donated 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. - The amount is not our concern. Out of scope.

(C) Individual donations made to Southington University this year were, on average, slightly larger than were average individual donations made to many other universities. - Size of individual donations is not our concern. Out of scope.

(D) Fund-raisers contacting past donors are not only to get new donations but also to get names of potential new donors to contact. We are concerned about what they did this year. What they do with the new donors next year - is not our concern. Moreover, if they are contacting past donors, in a way that strengthens the conclusion.

(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.- Perfect. If the majority (>50%) are new donors then 80% is a pretty commendable number and it seems the fundraisers did a credible job.

kartickdey · Answer

KarishmaB ,  Bunuel , I have one doubt in option E... By majority of donations, does it mean majority of donated amount or majority of donors? If it means majority of donated amount, then I doubt the answer choice E.

guddo · Answer

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?

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

The argument explains that while an 80% success rate in getting donations might seem good, it would be expected if fund-raisers only contacted past donors, who are very likely to give. To do their job well, fund-raisers should also contact less likely new prospects to expand the donor base, even if that lowers the success rate. Therefore, the high rate is actually evidence they didn't try hard enough to reach new people.

(A) Among potential donors contacted, the majority of those who did not make donations were past donors.

This does not weaken the argument. It provides information about who refused to donate, not about who did donate or whether new prospects were successfully reached. It does not challenge the claim of insufficient canvassing.

(B) The total amount of money raised this year was lower than in previous years.

This is irrelevant. The argument is about the percentage of contacts who donated (the success rate), not the total dollars raised. A lower total does not address whether new prospects were contacted.

(C) The average individual donation was slightly larger than at many other universities.

This is irrelevant. The argument concerns the mix of past versus new donors contacted and the resulting success rate, not the size of the donations received.

(D) Contacting past donors can also provide names of new potential donors to contact.

This does not weaken the argument. While it states a possible benefit of calling past donors, it offers no evidence that the fundraisers actually acted on this or expanded their efforts to contact a significant number of new prospects. The criticism is about insufficient canvassing of new people.

(E) Most of the donations received came from people who had never given to the university before.

This weakens the argument . If the majority of successful donations are from first-time donors, it proves the fundraisers did successfully contact and secure gifts from new, less likely prospects. Therefore, the high success rate demonstrates effective outreach to a new audience, not a lack of effort.

Answer: (E)

guddo · Answer

In the context of the argument, “donations” means number of donors, not total dollars. The argument’s statistic (80% success rate) counts people, so “majority of donations” logically refers to majority of donors to be relevant.

sriramsundaram91 · Answer

So if you know what to weaken then you are 50% through, you need to weaken the fact "not enough canvassing effort".

Canvassing effort is when you talk to people and convince them to donate, if major donations came from new donators, this would mean a lot of canvassing efforts were made.

Southington University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Southington University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia