ChaseDream

标题: GWD-10-Q29 让人绝望，但是貌似又理解了。。。。 [打印本页]

作者: 白冬冬 时间: 2016-6-14 22:12
标题: GWD-10-Q29 让人绝望，但是貌似又理解了。。。。

GWD-10-Q29：GWD-2-14

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 fund-raisers 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?

Smithtown University’s fund-raisers were successful in their contacts with potential donors who had never given before about as frequently as were fund-raisers for other universities in their contacts with such people.
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.
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.
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.
More than half of the money raised by Smithtown University’s fund-raisers came from donors who had never previously donated to the university.

作者: 白冬冬 时间: 2016-6-14 22:30
逻辑链：

Smiths 的 fund-raisers 接触的80%的人都捐了钱，（貌似很牛），但是因为.....(其实这个地方完全不用懂)，结论是80% 不代表sufficient effort。问加强该结论。

A选项直接加强结论：Smiths 的 fund-raisers 频率（努力）跟其他的fund-raisers 的频率（努力）一样。即努力程度一样，跟百分比没关系。

takeaway：

1）加强题是可以出现新的概念的，就是这里的frequency。因此support 题不能看见‘other’ 这样的词就当作无关比较而删除。

2）“问support conclusion，选项是conclusion 就是对的”，这种霸王加强逻辑其实也是见过的，跟逻辑链没有一毛钱关系。

求讨论，求拍砖，求辩真理，求考试别遇见这样的题。。。。

作者: alzn2765 时间: 2016-6-15 18:10

白冬冬发表于 2016-6-14 22:30
逻辑链：
Smiths 的 fund-raisers 接触的80%的人都捐了钱，（貌似很牛），但是因为.....(其实这个地方完全 ...

1. frenquency并不是“新概念”，frenquency只是constantly try换了一种说法

作者: 白冬冬 时间: 2016-6-16 07:04

alzn2765 发表于 2016-6-15 18:10
1. frenquency并不是“新概念”，frenquency只是constantly try换了一种说法

嗯，受教了，谢谢！

作者: 700upupup 时间: 2016-8-25 18:47

看了楼上的，发现大家都误解了一个地方，就是frequently。它其实修饰的是successful。我刚开始也以为意思是频繁的接触，但是仔细看这里contacts是作名词用的。
明白这一点，答案就很明显了。
a说的意思就是 SU在“说服没捐过款的对象”这件事情上，成功率是和其他学校一样的，也就排除了SU说服less-likely prospects成功率也可以很高，即 SU is doing good，的可能性，所以high success rate 一定是建立在“少去说服之前没捐过款的人”，也就是less canvassing 上的。
再来看c，这里题干第一句很重要，80%的比例是donors they contact的80%，而不是donations的总数80%（自己做题时理所当然地认为是后者，不知道有没有小伙伴也掉进了这个坑…），所以c是无关项。

作者: MissWang_xx929 时间: 2016-12-12 21:56
题干的结论：S大学的人不厉害。（即使他们向80%的人筹到款了）

A选项: S大学的人确实不厉害。（因为他们向没有捐过款的人筹集捐款时和别的大学室一样的成功率）

欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/)