ChaseDream

标题: 让一道GWD的赞助题给绕晕了，求高手指点！！ [打印本页]

作者: iamdurant 时间: 2011-6-22 15:33
标题: 让一道GWD的赞助题给绕晕了，求高手指点！！
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.

给的解析里竟然用数学模型算了一大堆，小弟晕了，小弟选的C，而且好像之前OG答案也是C,但是后来看说C是无关选项，因为C只是描述了Old donors的情况。答案是A。
求牛人分析，谢谢~！

作者: nysen 时间: 2011-6-22 15:55
搜一下以前的帖子，我刚看完，有收获。

作者: iamdurant 时间: 2011-6-22 15:59
求助。。。。。

作者: nysen 时间: 2011-6-22 16:14
Raiser成功地从他们联系的80%人中获得钱，这个高成功率并不代表他们工作出色。相反，因为原来donate的人更倾向于donate，所以好的Raiser不寄希望于扩大base。所以高成功率代表了不努力扩张。

然后你自己再绕绕...

现在A中说，SU的raiser在那些从没捐过款的人中的成功率与其他学校的raiser一样，而SU的R却有80%的成功率，这就体现在了他们从以前捐过款的人中获得的捐款较多，加之这些人本来就倾向于捐款，所以Raiser不用怎么努力就可以获得高成功率。so解释了原文。

希望能看懂

作者: sdcar2010 时间: 2011-6-22 22:55
Basically, a funder-raiser has two options: call a new donor or a frequent donor. As we know from the stimulus, the latter is more likely to donate anyway. If a funder-raiser keeps calling frequent donors, the funder-raiser's success rate will be very high.

C is out of scope because the stimulus focuses on the successful rate of 80% among the potential donors the fund-raisers CONTACTED. Who cares about those the fund-raisers did not contact? It has no impact on the argument.

On the other hand, A is a strengthener. In the stimulus, the premise says that “the people most likely to donate are those who have donated in the past.” The author is building a case against the 80% successful rate as a bench mark for a job well-done. Rather, the author accuses the fund-raisers with a not-so-good canvassing effort based on the 80% success rate, implying that they did not find NEW donors more efficiently than fund-raisers in other universities. If A is true, then they were only as “successful in their contacts with potential donors who had never given before” as other universities. Thus, they must have concentrated on the people that have donated before in order to get the 80% success rate.

作者: forevercoco 时间: 2011-6-24 20:03
终于明白鸟~~~~~

作者: ruirui_hsu 时间: 2011-7-12 16:31
看了这么多解释，顿悟！

作者: Bugatti 时间: 2011-8-17 14:05
标题: 分析很透彻

Raiser成功地从他们联系的80%人中获得钱，这个高成功率并不代表他们工作出色。相反，因为原来donate的人更倾向于donate，所以好的Raiser不寄希望于扩大base。所以高成功率代表了不努力扩张。

然后你自己再绕绕...

现在A中说，SU的raiser在那些从没捐过款的人中的成功率与其他学校的raiser一样，而SU的R却有80%的成功率，这就体现在了他们从以前捐过款的人中获得的捐款较多，加之这些人本来就倾向于捐款，所以Raiser不用怎么努力就可以获得高成功率。so解释了原文。

希望能看懂

-- by 会员 nysen (2011/6/22 16:14:03)

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