GWD-92 三种解题思路，都能推出答案然不知正确性，望NN指点！

ba1a糖儿 · 发表于 2018-5-29 18:25:10

如题，感谢！！
题目
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?

ASmithtown 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.
BThis 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.
CThis 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.
DThe 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.
EMore than half of the money raised by Smithtown University's fund-raisers came from donors who had never previously donated to the university.

OA:A

解题思路

①捐款率=P过去+P新人的融合。
P过去高了，但是P新人不高（和其他高校一样），所以综合、整体的efficiency都不行；

②原文说前提：过去人的捐款率高，结论：还是做得不好。
强调的选项必须要证明即便P高，E还是不行：带入A，前提还是一定能推出结论——并不改变二者关系

③原因：率高由于过去人的捐款率高；结果：做得不好
答案要排除他因影响的结果。A就是他因（新人拓展率），但是被排除了

cycgundam · 发表于 2018-6-5 07:26:34

我觉得答案是C。

条件1：优秀筹款人并不花大精力去寻找新的捐款人，因为一般最有可能捐款的人都是过去捐过款的。
条件2：这个大学筹款人联系的潜在捐款人中有80%捐钱了。

结论：以上条件可得这个大学筹款人游说力度不行，80%的捐款率并不能证明活动的成功。

A，无关。这个大学筹款人说动的新捐款人的成功程度与其他大学筹款人游说结果对比并不能证明什么。纯粹的成功对比并不直接证明数量大小本身。成功游说了5个，获得1000的捐款比游说了3个，获得300成功。但总捐款在5百万时，这个成功就很微不足道。无法支持或削弱。

B，和A类似，数量的对比并不能证明这个数量本身的大小。

C，支持了文章的逻辑。之前捐款人在没有被联系的情况下都能捐款，恰恰证明筹款人的努力与获得的捐款数量与成功是没有必然的联系。

D，直接削弱了逻辑。如果大部分捐献来自于新捐款人，则稍微能证明筹款人是有过努力去发展潜在捐款人。

E，和D类似。

ba1a糖儿 · 发表于 2018-6-7 08:50:52

cycgundam 发表于 2018-6-5 07:26
我觉得答案是C。

条件1：优秀筹款人并不花大精力去寻找新的捐款人，因为一般最有可能捐款的人都是过去捐过 ...

感谢回帖~~答案是A来着... ... 我之前也选了C，前文说80%他们联系的人都捐款了，C选项说没有联系的捐款人也捐款，正说明了他们的效率高呀！总捐款=80%联系到的人的捐款+20%主动捐款

[Helr题库] GWD-92 三种解题思路，都能推出答案然不知正确性，望NN指点！

所属分类: GMAT考试

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()