第 24 楼
Q14:
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?
这题我选了c，手上有两种答案a、c，请nn帮助确认一下解释一下。谢谢。
我下载的携隐mm说此题选A，因为
未捐赠人的比率和别的大学一样高，说明80%的高成功率不是来自未捐赠人。
本来我是选C的，看到这句话以后迷惑了....
there are many wonderful explanations in the following link. my explanation is offered in 26th level
http://forum.chasedream.com/dispbbs.asp?BoardID=24&ID=57558
看到了，选A。非常感谢
Q14:
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?
这题我选了c，手上有两种答案a、c，请nn帮助确认一下解释。
c.80%潜在的人捐款了，文章中说，这不足以说明他们募捐者厉害，那么加强就是
c中得80%中有许多以前捐过的但是没有签合同的人。
GWD2-14应选C。 原题说新赠户(donors)太多说明学校的fund-raisers没有努力做老赠户的工作(shows insufficient canvassing effort)，C是搭桥，说这些fr’s 的确根本就没跟这些老赠户联系，让这一点更加明了。A拿fr’s跟别的学校比，是无关的。
我认为解题的重点在于：
1）紧紧扣住Argument对于good fund-raisers的定义: good fund-raisers为扩展the donor base坚持不懈地尝试less-likely prospects。（Prospects: the chances of being successful），即发掘那些尚未捐过款的人群——contacts with potential donors who had never given before。
2）看看哪个选项提供的条件可以evaluate(support or weaken)
A的条件: S were successful in their contacts as frequently as others——S校effort的成功率与他校相同。
这要作为支持选项还缺少一个Assumption，即没有说明S校是否有constantly try the effort.
即便大家有相同的成功概率，如果你try的次数相对少，拉到的new donors还是会比别人少。
本文中成功“率”不能说明任何问题，as frequently as这一说法不能有效地evaluate，既无支持，也无削弱。因此，A选项似是而无关。
再看C给出的条件: most of the donations came from previous donors。
我们不知道除了most的这些donations之外S校拉到多少new donors，即80%的success rate也不能indicate S校到底为expand the donor base做了多少canvassing effort。
–〉直接支持结论说的：This success rate does not indicate that they were doing a good job.
注意点1：结论说的“does not indicate that they were doing a good job —— 80%也不能表示S做得好。”
并不是断言S就做得不好。
注意点2：正确理解选项A中successful in their contacts as frequently as others的含义。
注意点3：不要混淆概念，文章需要evaluate的不是the size of donations或money，而是donors, 或donations.( donors makes donations ; donation是一种action，giving money or sth else)
我看几个选项是：A-无关，B-无关，D-反，E-无关
一正一反三无关，考试中若是碰到此题我会坚持选C.
good fundraisers constantly try less-likely prospects in an effort to expand the donor base.
这是作者评判是否可以称为good fund raisers的标准，那就是扩大donor base
good raiser->enlarge donor base非常成功 （原命题）
非（enlarge donor base非常成功）-〉不是好的raiser (逆否命题）
现在得出结论不是好的raiser
就是要找到不能很好的enlarge donor base这个证据
C. This year most of the donations that came to
c中是说那些以前捐过款今年又捐款的人大部分都是自己来的，这些fund raisers没有和他们接触过
C根本未提及这些fund raiser是否尝试联系新的donor
A中则是说这些raise和其他大学的raiser，在联系新的Donor并说服其捐款上
成功的概率差不多，因此就是答案
选A。
原文说他们联系的人中有80％捐钱了，因为捐钱的大部分是以前捐过的，由于没有很好的扩大新的捐助者→80%的成功率不能说明他们工作做得好。A说对于新的捐助者S大学和其他大学一样多，即说明高的捐助率不能说明他们的工作多么成功，正确的支持原文。C讲的是他们没有联系的人捐款的事情，和联系的人中有80％捐钱无关，所以错。
"A" is not the correct answer. In "A" they compare Smith U to other Universities, but there is no information what the other Universities did or didn't do to contact donors. "C" in correct, because it states that they did not contact new donors and "canvassing" means to go out and contact people and talk to them and try to get donations. In "C" it states that they didn't contact anybody, so there was no attempted to "canvass" any donor pool new or existing.
选A
因为C还是再说以前的那些捐钱的人捐钱
其实，如果不联系他们，他们还是会捐，所以通过他们来衡量fund raiser的工作没有意义，应该用那些没有捐过的或者说unlikly的人来衡量
if I meet this one, I will go A for SURE!
good fundraisers constantly try less-likely prospects in an effort to expand the donor base.
这是作者评判是否可以称为good fund raisers的标准，那就是扩大donor base
good raiser->enlarge donor base非常成功 （原命题）
非（enlarge donor base非常成功）-〉不是好的raiser (逆否命题）
现在得出结论不是好的raiser
就是要找到不能很好的enlarge donor base这个证据
------------------------------------------------------以上同意
C. This year most of the donations that came to
c中是说那些以前捐过款今年又捐款的人大部分都是自己来的，这些fund raisers没有和他们接触过
这里most修饰的是donations，不是people。也就是说，假设筹集到的款项里90%是来自old donor的，这部分钱是不请自到的，捐款者没有被contact过；剩下10%来自new donor，捐款者有没有被contact过不知道，如果有，这部分人的80%被说服捐钱了。这说明了fund raiser的贡献非常小，从而给他们的工作予负评价。承认C很绕，不像一个标准ETS风格的答案，但相比A我还是倾向于选它。
C根本未提及这些fund raiser是否尝试联系新的donor
A中则是说这些raise和其他大学的raiser，在联系新的Donor并说服其捐款上
成功的概率差不多，因此就是答案
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |