GWD-2-14，谁给看看这道不着边的题？

Q14:

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.

Answer is C. 我实在不懂，谁给说说！考试时碰到，一准晕。

很明确吧。原文说smithtown虽然拿了好多捐款，但并不表明它的fundrasier成功。

C说明好多捐款的在没有被fundraiser接触的情况下就捐了钱，正好加强了原文的说服力。

support C

请看这个联接http://forum.chasedream.com/dispbbs.asp?boardID=24&ID=57558&page=1

答案是A，C是无关选项

a用逆否命题将前提重复了一次, 题目midian conclusion:good raisers---->less likely，a:非less likely,but as frequently as,所以可以推出不是good raisers

C is irrespective

A is the answer ,because Smithtown University’s fund-raisers contacts with such people as frequently as were fund-raisers for other universities ,.

It confirms that  Smithtown University’s fund-raisers " insufficient canvassing effort"

原文说筹资委员会从潜在赞助者的80％那里筹集到了资金而仍然被批评，说他们没有努力。想想如果这个评价是你下的，你会有什么理由来支持自己的观点？那么肯定就是这些资金都是从以往就有赞助的人家那里得来得，而不是从那些从来没有给这个大学捐助过的潜在资助人那里得来的。

换句话说，如果你募集到的那些资金大部分都是从以前没有捐助过的人那里得来的，那我就要对筹资委员会伸出大拇指，说他们能干了！

还是没有看懂A为什么对？？与其他大学比较说一样多把，又没有说比其他大学少。如果其他大学的新捐助者很多呢？？？这个比较好像不足以说明新的捐助者少把。（AS。。。。。AS）

求教！！！