GWD2-14求助

babyfox1124

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?

 

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. More than half of the money raised by Smithtown
                           University’s fund-raisers came from donors who had never previously donated to the university.

这道题为什么选A啊，我怎么选都是选C。。。

请高手指教啊

yijing36

是应该选C

somiz

答案A.

A中说到 S学校的基金募集人联系那些之前从来没有捐钱的人是跟其他学校的募集人一样的频繁.

结果80%都是之前捐过的人给的钱.

那么那些之前没有捐过的人不都把钱捐给其他学校了.  支持结论,即没有效率的拉票. 

不知道我解释的清楚不.

小佳

ls，题中没说80%的钱都是之前捐过的人给的吧？

c很好啊，直接削弱结论：

This success rate, exceptionally high for university fund-raisers, does not indicate that they were doing a good job。

说今年大部分捐钱的人都不是那些募集捐款的人怂恿的。

小佳

80 percent of the potential donors they contacted

是他们联系的人中的80%的人吧，既然“基金募集人联系那些之前从来没有捐钱的人是跟其他学校的募集人一样的频繁”， 你如何得出是之前捐过的人捐的呢。

小佳

再补充一小点：

比较本校和其他学校的募集人募集的频率，是不可能得到“那么那些之前没有捐过的人不都把钱捐给其他学校了”。

这中间gap好大。

somiz

C 直接反对前提了, 前提说80%都是来自于 they contacted 潜在的募捐人.而C呢,直接说most of the donations 来自与without the university’s fund-raisers having made any contact with the donors.

我再来解释一下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.

potential donors 肯定要捐钱的那些人,但是不一定捐给Smith学校.  既然Smith学校的人跟其他学校的人联系一样的频繁.  那结果为什么是does not indicate that they were doing a good job.   显然是努力做的不够.  加强结论.

[此贴子已经被作者于2008-3-24 13:42:06编辑过]

小佳

前题中的80%不是说总数的80%，而是“他们联系的潜在募捐人”中的80%吧，不会驳斥前提阿。

pharmacystar

选c 

因为a是说联系的频繁程度而不是说拿到donation的成功比例，所以是无关选项

c中提到  很多捐助都是慕名而来，是大学的名声吸引来的，而非募资人的努力换来的

与文中的理由呼应

文中的观点其实就是说，成功的比例与募资人的能力不成正比

就是说成功另有理由

c给出了另一个理由

 

要仔细读题干，体会作者的意思，

[此贴子已经被作者于2008-3-24 20:02:31编辑过]

zhengzhi

我也觉得选C啊！A说这个学校跟其他学校努力一样，不如C直接说这个学校没怎么接触好