我也来求解一道题，A选项没看懂（按照我理解的意思解释不通）

liuxusean

看了好多遍终于明白了A！楼上正解，不多说了

医生吃鱼

落薇裳 发表于 2013-7-9 22:11
我试着讲讲我的看法

首先我们来看题干中的重点句子：

同意！               

yangmuhua89757

落薇裳 发表于 2013-7-9 22:11
我试着讲讲我的看法

首先我们来看题干中的重点句子：

Mark一下！               

peddler

这道题在智课网的视频上老管给的答案是C，大家不妨再讨论下
Argument—— 有捐款来自于一帮人，但这帮人并没怎么努力，因为捐的人基本都是以前在给我捐款的人，所以 他们并没有真正努力去做这事

A. SU 的fund-raiser 成功地联系了潜在的捐赠者，这些捐赠者是以前没有捐的，而且频率和其它大学联系这帮人的频率是一模一样的。
—— 可直接扔掉，“联系频率”一不一样和原文没关系

B. 今年平均的捐赠 给到SU  来自于新捐赠者的，它们是SU的fund-raiser联系的人，而这个量是大于平均值 ，这个值 来自于以前就给SU捐款的人。—— 驳斥

C. 今年大部分给SU的捐赠来自于 以前就给SU捐款的人，而还根本就还没有经过这帮人与他们联系  

D. 驳斥，这没问题

E.   驳斥，这没问题

ianwyb

我觉得是C啊，所有觉得A是对的人，意思都是SU的筹款人既然已经和别的大学的筹款人一样联系潜在的捐款者了，但是他们没有成功从潜在捐款人这边募到款，所以他们是不成功的。但是题干中并没有说今年的款项大部分来自于哪里，On the contrary后面的是个假设，并不是实际情况。如果SU今年的捐款像别的几个选项医院大部分来自于他们联系的潜在捐款者而不是原来的捐款人呢？他们联系了，还成功了，不是削弱了么？
而C选项等于是证明了这个假设，所以是support的。

ianwyb

这句话的结论在于The high success rate shows insufficient canvassing effort. 是说他们不努力。C选项是说，就算是那些很有可能捐款的人，他们也没努力去争取，所以就更不努力了。
而A选项来说，你能说他们不努力么？

jiaoyue7707

确定这道题不是选e么？

Reasoning
What would undermine the case made for the argument's conclusion? The argument's conclusion is that the high
success rate is evidence that the fund-raisers did not try hard enough to contact new potential donors. The argument
is that since normally such a high donation rate could have been achieved even if only previous donors had been
contacted, the fund-raisers must not have tried hard enough to contact people outside this group. But this reasoning
neglects the possibility that the fund-raisers did contact lots of people who previously hadn't donated. If they had
done that, one would expect the overall donation percentage to be lower than 80 percent. The 80 percent rate they
actually achieved might mean, then, that they were unusually successful in getting donations from previous nondonors.
Therefore, look for an answer option that suggests that that might have happened.
A. This answer option is compatible with the case the argument makes and does not weaken it. Given the
argument's suggestion that the fund-raisers contacted almost nobody other than previous donors, then it is to be
expected that most of the contacted people who to make donations would be previous donors.
B. If the fund-raisers did not raise much money this year, that would be further evidence that they did not try hard
enough--which would strengthen rather than weaken the case the argument makes.
C. This is compatible with the case the argument makes. To the extent that it is some evidence of effort on the part
of S0uthington's fundraisers, at best it weakens the argument only very slightly. This is because we are not given
information that would contextualize this new information and make clearer its significance. For example, have
Southington University's fund-raisers always raised much larger average individual donations than other
universities’ fundraisers? Were there special circumstances this year (e.g., a centenary), resulting in higher
average donations from Southington's typical donors than from most other universities’ donors? Thus the
information in this answer option does not significantly weaken the case the argument makes that Southington's
fund-raisers might not have tried hard enough.
D. This does not weaken the argument. It is a highly general claim about fund-raisers, not specifically about
Southington's fund-raisers. We are not given information about the extent to which this was true of
Southington's fund-raisers this year. Moreover, even if S0uthington's fund-raisers got the names of potential new
donors to contact, this would not indicate that the fund-raisers actually contacted these potential donors.
E. Correct. If most of the donations were from people who hadn't donated before, then the fund-raisers must
have contacted lots of those unlikely prospects and been quite successful in persuading them to donate.
The correct answer is E.

can1995

On the contrary, since the people most likely to donate are those who have donated in the past, good fund-raisers constantly try less-likely prospects in an effort to expand the donor base.
捐款者很多都是以往捐过款的人，好的筹款人应该避免联系这些人而去找没捐过款的，以此扩大捐款者的群众基础。

SUSUWH

S大学的筹款人今年成功从80%潜在捐赠者那里获得了捐款。如果潜在捐赠者是原来捐过钱的，这个比例没什么特别的。但好的筹资人会持续联系希望不大的机会，努力扩大捐赠基础。因此，高的成功率不能表明筹资人工作做得好，而是表明不够努力
削弱题
A.         在S大学筹资人联系的潜在人群中，没有捐款的人中多数过去都捐过；增强，方向反，排
B.         S大学今年筹到的钱比以前少；无关比较，排
C.         今年S大学个人捐赠比很多其他大学的个人捐赠多一点；无关比较，排
D.         筹资人联系过去捐款人不仅获得捐赠，而且获得新潜在捐款者名字；无关，排
E.         S大学筹款人成功获得的存款中大部分来自从没捐过钱的人；说明捐款主要来自新客户，削弱结论，正确

DaYangDa

SUSUWH 发表于 2017-8-6 11:50
S大学的筹款人今年成功从80%潜在捐赠者那里获得了捐款。如果潜在捐赠者是原来捐过钱的，这个比例没什么特别 ...

Which of the following, if true, provides more support for the argument?      为什么要选削弱结论的呢