ChaseDream

标题: 求助~GWD-10-Q29：GWD-2-14 [打印本页]

作者: songhanxiao 时间: 2010-8-3 09:46
标题: 求助~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?

A.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.
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.

我选的C，答案是A，求解释~~~

作者: 文春三刀禾 时间: 2010-10-14 21:34
me too C help!!!

作者: akiluk 时间: 2010-11-15 22:30
http://forum.chasedream.com/GMAT_CR/thread-334963-1-9.html

题目说 good fund-raisers constantly try less-likely prospects in an effort to expand the donor base. 厉害的筹款人都是去尝试联系那些成功率更低的捐款人（也就是没捐过的）来拓宽这个捐款群体，得出结论university’s fund-raisers不牛b~ 要加强~

而C 说今年大部分向SU大学捐钱的人都是之前捐过钱的人，而university’s fund-raisers 都没有和捐这些钱的人联系过~ 其实是证明
university’s fund-raisers 很NB ，（因为成功率高，而且expand the donor base）所以是削弱喔~

作者: sdcar2010 时间: 2010-11-15 22:50
Premises: 1) The success rate for Smithtown university fund-raising team was extremely high.
2) The high success rate shows insufficient canvassing effort (to contact more people)
Conclusion: High success rate for Smithtown university fund-raisers does not indicate that they were doing a good job (canvassing effort to contact more people)

A) 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. If this is true, then the premise (2) made in the stimulus was wrong since apparently the fund-raisers did make an effort to include new donors instead of focusing exclusively on previous donors. So a high successful rate does not equal bad canvassing effort. This is a weakener.

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. The premise is that the fund-raisers did not contact enough potential donor. Here is the proof that many potential donors exist among those who have not been contacted by the fund-raising team. They should improve their outreach program and improve their canvassing effort. This is a strengthener.

C is the answer.

P.S. The wording in both the stimulus and the answer choices are confusing. Both answers (A) and (C) could be right depending on how you argue your case. If the stimulus only treats expending donor base plus high successful rate as the criteria for a successful fund-raising effort, the question would make much more sense.

作者: ahasusanna 时间: 2012-5-13 22:56
NN为嘛你在两个帖子里说的答案不一样……

作者: hst199173 时间: 2012-5-14 15:59
我觉得还是C对，因为C答案表示今年获得的80%的捐款中很大一部分是来自于以前捐过的但是fund-raiser没有联系过的人，也就是说fund-raiser没有花费力气再这些人身上，但是这些人却做出了很大的贡献，也就更加的加强了原题中的说法The high success rate shows insufficient canvassing effort.
A答案中A. 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.
SU学校的fund-raiser与其他学校的一样成功联系到潜在的捐助者，又怎样？？potential doner难道就以为着会donate么？？进一步推理过度了吧？而且与其他学校的一样成功，不也可以理解为SU的fund-raiser很卖力么？这不就削弱题目的结论The high success rate shows insufficient canvassing effort.了么？？求继续讨论！

作者: ahasusanna 时间: 2012-5-14 17:12
good fund-raisers constantly try less-likely prospects in an effort to expand the donor base是说好的筹款人应该去联系没有捐过钱的人
The high success rate shows insufficient canvassing effort.是说成功率低才说明有足够的努力
也就是要去找没有捐过钱的人，并且成功率低才行么，那A只是说他们和其他大学的人一样成功，并不能表示成功率低啊，我觉得这题没答案的说

作者: maestri 时间: 2012-5-14 17:32
在下拙见：

根据题干：该校筹款成功率高--〉好的筹款人要联系没捐过款的人---〉高成功率表现了游说努力的不足

分析：题干从头到尾没说该校联系的捐款人情形怎样，是初捐还是再捐。那么支持的选项需要表现出这一点，不然是得不出结论的。

因此：A的意思为：S校联系的初捐人捐款的成功率和其他学校差不多，也就是说

1. S校在初捐人方面做得并不比其他学校好（和其他学校差不多）
2. 80%的捐款比例说明，初捐人捐款占的比例和别的学校差不多--〉再捐人捐款比例比别的学校高很多--〉（事实：再捐人基本很容易捐款）--〉S校联系的再次捐款人多--〉努力不够

作者: jlwzx 时间: 2012-6-3 10:59
我覺得，這個問題是否可以這樣簡單地終結？
題目討論的是聯繫捐款人的成功率，是和人數有關的，而不是不同捐款人群（新的和老的）各自的捐款金額。然而，BCDE都是在討論金額（donations, money 等），唯有A與金額無關

作者: wwk_lion 时间: 2012-10-4 21:50
非常有道理！！

在下拙见：

根据题干：该校筹款成功率高--〉好的筹款人要联系没捐过款的人---〉高成功率表现了游说努力的不足

分析：题干从头到尾没说该校联系的捐款人情形怎样，是初捐还是再捐。那么支持的选项需要表现出这一点，不然是得不出结论的。

因此：A的意思为：S校联系的初捐人捐款的成功率和其他学校差不多，也就是说

1. S校在初捐人方面做得并不比其他学校好（和其他学校差不多）
2. 80%的捐款比例说明，初捐人捐款占的比例和别的学校差不多--〉再捐人捐款比例比别的学校高很多--〉（事实：再捐人基本很容易捐款）--〉S校联系的再次捐款人多--〉努力不够

-- by 会员 maestri (2012/5/14 17:32:39)

作者: sarah1990 时间: 2012-12-19 11:16
同意！个人觉得还是A对，如果假设二次捐款成功率为x%，初次捐款率为Y%,那么肯定x>y，A选项的意思是说SU募捐者的初捐成功率与其他学校募捐者的初捐成功率是一样的，即大家的y相等，（successful...as frequently as,可能很多同学误以为是联系的人一样多，或者是最终成果一样好，所以得出了不同的结论）而最终SU的总体成功率为80%，远高于其他学校，那么按照权重来看，就说明SU的募捐者肯定联系二次捐款人要多得多，从而说明了他们try less-likely prospects in an effort to expand the donor base.

作者: raindyshine 时间: 2013-7-17 10:52

maestri 发表于 2012-5-14 17:32
在下拙见：根据题干：该校筹款成功率高--〉好的筹款人要联系没捐过款的人---〉高成功率表现了游说努力的不 ...

说得太好了！！支持你的观点~

作者: yxl199064 时间: 2013-8-30 15:55
这题我想了很久，最后想到一个能说服我自己的解释，各位鉴定一下看是否说得通：
说捐款的人有两种，一种是以前捐过的（很有可能会继续捐），一种是从未捐过的（捐的可能性较之前一种人小一些）S校筹款成功率很高。这些是已知。
一个不言而喻的推论：一个学校筹款总成功率（T）=找捐过的人继续捐的成功率（J）+找从未捐过的人捐的成功率（W），即T=J+W
A选项说，S校筹款的这群人如果让他们去联系那些从未捐过的人（也就是那些不太可能会捐的人），他们的表现和其他学校的人差不多（即W没有特别高）
那么，S校这么高的成功率（T）就来自于他们努力去找那些捐过的人（J）简单点说，要使T变高，W又没变高，J必须变高。
而题目又告诉我们，那些去找以前捐过的人的的筹款人其实是不nb的，所以，这么高的J就意味着S校这群人经常找以前捐过的人，也就意味着他们不牛逼。。。
不知道我说明白了没有。。。汗。。。

作者: 你好梦想 时间: 2014-9-28 16:01

maestri 发表于 2012-5-14 17:32
在下拙见：根据题干：该校筹款成功率高--〉好的筹款人要联系没捐过款的人---〉高成功率表现了游说努力的不 ...

这位童鞋分析得很好所以A就是答案；
不过很多人觉得C无关，我觉得C不是无关，是削弱。因为C说大部分再捐人的捐款未经过联系就得到了，说明raisers联系的人大部分都是未捐过款的人，再结合题干中说的raisers联系过的人中有80%都捐了款，所以80%差不多就是raisers联系的初捐人捐款的成功比例，非常高，和原文假设相反。

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