ChaseDream

标题: 请教一道GWD的逻辑题 [打印本页]

作者: MsL 时间: 2013-11-9 21:16
标题: 请教一道GWD的逻辑题

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.

正确答案A

请问为什么是A而不是C呢？

作者: skyemotion 时间: 2013-11-12 17:56
C是讲的有没有签合同。和原逻辑不想关。

作者: soulwangh 时间: 2013-11-13 17:52
#C#选项的无关实际表现在：往坏了说它是Out of Scope的；往好了说在它仅加强了前提，而非结论。

因为所有的GmatCR题前提和结论都有Gap，没有作用在这个Gap上的选项都是无关的。原文前提是说因为大学里的一个普遍现象是donators如果have donated了，他们就会更容易donate。所以好的Found riser都会尽量去找之间没有donate过的人。原文结论是说尽管在所有的联系到的donators中有80%的成功捐款率，大学的found riser not necessarily were doing a good job. 这个前提和结论的Gap是一个Assumption，作者假设了S大学的found riser可能并没有去找新的donator，而是在原来已经有过捐款行为的donator中进行了contact。如果支持，就证明作者的假设成立就可以。这是所谓的作用在GAP上。

反观C的处理方式：C说 most of the donors are Old Donators without contract . 原文讨论的success标准的 SCOPE是在 Contact之后的成功率下, C实际是out of scope的。进一步来说 C的出现并没有证实作者的假设。它仅是证实了的确捐过钱的校友更容易捐款。多了一个不用联系都能捐款并捐了大多数款的信息，这个信息对于前提和结论的Gap没有任何影响。

像C这样的还有A certain cultivated herb 一题中的D选项。原文的Gap是有相关到因果之间的推理。D仅是加强了前提中植物氨基酸可以使土壤的有毒物质失活的作用。并不能充分推导出植物能够存货在有毒土壤就是因为氨基酸而不是其他因素。

作者: 云游 时间: 2013-11-19 16:25
The conclusion is related to insufficient canvassing effort!!! Pay attention---Canvassing effort!!!!

How the donation was made is nonsensial--whether or not by fund raisers, who cares?!!

I may spend 3 years and visist thousands of donators but still raised 100 dollors while some others asked one potential donator but successfully raised 300 dollors. No body can say that I'm paying less effort, right?

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