GWD-10-29

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 fundraisers 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 fundraisers 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.

The given key is C, but I think A is better.  What do you guys/girls think?  Thanks in advance!

(C)对文中的arguement产生架桥作用(捐款人自动捐款), 使得文中的arguement: good fundraisers constantly try less-likely prospects in an effort to expand the donor base 有依据.

(A)做了不相关的比较: S. univ 成功的接触那些其它univ 也要接触的捐款者

(个人意见: (A)只讲到contact donors, 并没讲到捐款)

还请NN指点....

I have to disagree.

Argument: insufficient canvassing effort of the fund-raisers
If C is true: most repeat donors this year were not contacted by fund-raisers, and considering fund-raisers "succeeded in getting donations from 80 percent of the potential donors contacted", then C shows fund-raisers are contacting new donors, i.e. they are doing good canvassing job.  Thus C weakens the argument.

Any comments?

insufficent canvassing effort does not mean that they didn't do any effort

C indicates that fund-raisers are making efforts by contacting new donors, however, their efforts are far from sufficient.

If the fund-raisers "succeeded in getting donations from 80 percent of the potential donors contacted", and they did contact new donors, how can you claim that "their efforts are far from sufficient"?!?

Sorry for not being clear...

This is what i think:

It is true that fundraisers succeeded in getting donations from 80 percent of the potential donors they contacted.This is a fact.However, the author asserts that high success rate for fundraiser does not indicate that they are doing good job because people who donate are those who have donated in the past, and that  (principle) good fundraisers should constantly try less-likely prospects in an effort to expand the donor base.." The author further concludes that fundraisers are not doing enough effort. We are hence given a hint that these fundraisers,instead of getting donations from new donors, actually get them from he who has donated before.That's what the author means by "The high success rate shows insufficient canvassing effort"

I think "potential donors"at the very beginning of the sentence does not mean new donors.Au contraire,according to what the author states in the latter part, it refers to whose who had donated in the past.What do you think? If you agree with me on this point, then choice C should be the right answer since by indicating that fundraisers got those donations without even making contact with the donors, choice C is on par with what the author states and helps the author fill a gap in the argument.

Pay attention to this point: the author does not judge whether fundraisers have made enough efforts by the result of fundraising. Au contraire, his criteria is whether fundraisers have tried to get donations from those who had never donated before, this is exactly what says the principle.

   I vote for C

   you see,  fund-raisers do not contract the donors who donote to the university, that is to say fund-raisers do not pool their efforts to  expand the donor base.

MarieZhu MM has written an interesting AA essay.  But, I'm not convinced yet.

First, let's look at the conclusion of the argument and the evidence provided in the passage:
Conclusion: The high success rate (somehow) still shows insufficient canvassing effort of the fund-raisers
Evidence 1 (E1): Fund-raisers were able to get donation from 80% potential donors contacted.
Evidence 2 (E2) : The success rate is exceptionally high for university fund-raisers
Evidence 3 (E3): People most likely to donate are those who have donated in the past
Evidence 4 (E4): Good fundraisers constantly try less-likely prospects in an effort to expand the donor base

Now let's look at why C weakens the conclusion.
C states that most repeat donors (please note, not most donors!) this year were not contacted by fund-raisers.  Since they are not contacted by fund-raisers, they are not considered "potential donors contacted" as in E1.  Therefore, their donations were not counted towards the 80% percentage success rate.  The 80% success rate must be based on another group of people.  Who?  The only possibility left is those new donors.  Therefore, the fund-raisers did contact lots of new donors and got 80% of them to donate.  According to E2, this is a very respectable rate.  Therefore, C indicates that fund-raisers were contacting new donors and did a good job to get them donate.  So, the conclusion is weakened.

Let's look at why A strengthen the conclusion.
A says that Smithtown University (SU)'s fund-raisers were no more successful than other fundraisers in their contact with new donors.  How do you define a successful contact for fundraising purpose?  A successful contact for fundraising purpose means the fundraiser is able to get the contacted to donate.  O.K.  SU fundraisers were no more successful than others in getting donation from new donors.  How come they can achieve the 80% rate in E1, which is much higher than other fundraisers (E2)?  The only logical explanation is, SU fundraisers went after those folks who have donated before to ask for donation.  Since E3 tells us that former donors are most likely to donate again, by going after former donors, SU fundraisers were able to pump up their success rate.  But, they didn't do a good job to solicit new donors - their canvassing effort was insufficient.  A strengthen the argument.

Well, it's a little long-winded.  I hope that I've convinced you if you have the patience to finish reading this 400+ words AA essay :-)  Otherwise please let me know, I'd love to hear different opinions.  Thanks!

我选A。理由如下：

题中说，S大学的募捐人员从联系的捐款者中得到捐款的比例是80%，而C说大部分捐款都是来自已经捐过款的人，并且募捐人员没有跟这些人联系，这样说明募捐者联系的人大多是以前没有捐过款的人，在这些人中获得这么高比例的成功率说明他们的募捐非常有效，所以这样反而是削弱了结论。注意：文中说的募捐成功率，与捐款数额无关，即使大部分捐款都来自以前捐过款的人，但并不排除新捐款的人数也很多，但捐款额不大的情况。

A说：S大学的募捐人员通过联系从没有捐过款的人得到捐款的概率与其他大学的募捐者差不多，这样就说明S大学的募捐人员联系的人当中，已经捐过款的人的比例比较高，所以才造成总体的募捐成功率比较高，这样就加强了结论。