请教GWD-TN8-Q29

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.

拜托大家看一下啊，为什么选A啊？

我也选的C啊，总觉得A反而起削弱作用。

我觉得答案是A，

C 说来给学校捐钱且是原来就捐过的人都是没有经过筹款人联系的，那么可以推出这个学校的筹款人在联系的是那些没有捐过钱的人，weaken原文。

文章脉络是S大学的筹款人的工作成功率很高，但是一般那些原来捐过钱的人都喜欢再捐钱，所以高的成功率反而说明S大学筹款人不倾向于开拓新的筹款人。但是这里有一个gap：那就是也许S大学的筹款人真的对没捐过钱的人有特别的办法，这样他的成绩就真实的反映了他的工作。A否定了这种可能，support

嗯 同意愁予，如果没有A 该结论就会被‘A非’削弱。

恩，明白啦，十分感谢，perfect explanation!

S大学没有频繁地去联系那些没捐过钱的人，没有做出effort，也就说明他们高成功率不能反映他们工作的努力程度。