ChaseDream
搜索
返回列表 发新帖
查看: 2838|回复: 3
打印 上一主题 下一主题

GWD8-29

[复制链接]
跳转到指定楼层
楼主
发表于 2010-4-1 11:21:33 | 只看该作者 回帖奖励 |倒序浏览 |阅读模式
没看到讨论帖。。
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


答案是选A,但是为什么啊?有没有好心人帮我解释一下?
收藏收藏 收藏收藏
沙发
发表于 2010-4-1 15:49:28 | 只看该作者
这个题目中的推导过程有一个flaw就是认为fund-raiser如果对less-likely prospects兜售donation的成功率肯定要远低于针对之前已经donate过的群体。这里少考虑了一个因素,如果fund-raiser花了尤其多的时间在某些less-likely prospects身上可能的话,成功率并不一定会低。比如,一般每次兜售的次数为3次,但对一个某特有钱的铁公鸡兜售了100次最后一次终于成功了,那么这次就是一个成功的案例。

A堵死了这个可能性,SU的fund-raiser并不是特别勤快,所以很有可能他们尝试新客户的effort确实不够。
板凳
 楼主| 发表于 2010-4-1 16:05:33 | 只看该作者
恩恩,懂了,谢谢啊!!
地板
发表于 2012-9-25 02:33:54 | 只看该作者
我还是不明白,A怎么就堵死了你说的那种可能呢?A又没有说,他们联系的那些没有联系过的捐助着都没有或者很少成功,他只是说和别的学校差不多,差不多可能大家都做得很好呢?谁规定只能有一个学校可以做的好?
而且我觉得C很好啊,不明白问题出在哪里?
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

Mark一下! 看一下! 顶楼主! 感谢分享! 快速回复:

手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2024-11-10 11:31
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2023 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部