GWD真是个让人崩溃的东西……

arieslee0410 · 发表于 2010-12-19 23:51:09

我听很多人说GWD比较难~是这样吗？为什么总感觉做他的逻辑很不顺呢？……
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.

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.
越看越觉得C对……咋会选A呢？？？
求求求讲解~~

sdcar2010 · 发表于 2010-12-20 00:29:50

C is out of scope because the stimulus focuses on the successful rate of 80% among the potential donors the fund-raisers CONTACTED. Who cares about those the fund-raisers did not contact? It has no impact on the argument.

On the other hand, A is a strengthener. In the stimulus, the premise says that “the people most likely to donate are those who have donated in the past.” The author is building a case against the 80% successful rate as a bench mark for a job well-done. Rather, the author accuses the fund-raisers with a not-so-good canvassing effort based on the 80% success rate, implying that they did not find NEW donors more efficiently than fund-raisers in other universities. If A is true, then they were only as “successful in their contacts with potential donors who had never given before” as other universities. Thus, they must have concentrated on the people that have donated before in order to get the 80% success rate.

我爱SAAB · 发表于 2011-4-19 15:48:59

看了LS的解释还是有疑问，刚刚做完这套题。

LS的解释就是说把donors分成两部分，一部分是以前捐的，一部分是new，没捐过的；那么如果smithtown的raiser接触后一部分和其他大学的raiser接触的一样频繁，那么他们之所以得到80%的概率是因为他们的basement主要基于大量的曾经捐助者，从而strength结论；

疑问：smithtown的raiser和其他的raiser接触后者的成功率是一样，但是他们得到80%的概率，证明smithtown的raiser从后者中得到捐赠大于其他大学的raiser从后者所得到的，那这样不就是weaken了么？

还是这里面有个assumption，successful contact 是和得到的donate成等量关系的？！如果这个assumption成立，那就肯定是A...

可是仅仅是contact不代表是捐了还是没捐啊...

Kb24 · 发表于 2011-4-19 17:29:41

A说Smithtown在争取potential donors who had never given before这方面的工作做的非常的average. 注意2010大侠（又换了马甲差点又没认出来）说的'ONLY as successful as其他大学的fund raiser.说明他们在做这方面的工作no better than average. 而Smithtown的fund raiser的成绩却远远高于average （This success rate, exceptionally high for university fund-raisers），因此strengthen了conclusion: The high success rate shows insufficient canvassing effort

我爱SAAB · 发表于 2011-4-19 19:22:01

谢LS的NN！

其实我后来写完就明白了。。囧
所以CR一定要看懂结论才是，不能自我胡乱发散。。。

大树下的松鼠 · 发表于 2012-12-22 16:54:32

I know what you mean,but i still doubt the use of the phrase "contact with".
I don't think contacting with potential donors more frequently means getting more donations

GWD真是个让人崩溃的东西……

所属分类: GMAT考试

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()