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.
A 我觉得是无关，跟别的啥学校比较，对该题无意义把。 B C D E 我觉得都是 weaken。 请高人指点我的思路错在哪里了？ 谢谢！！
选A。。。不解。。。 C 是weaken 吧，most of the donations that came from people who had previously donated to it were made without the university’s fund-raisers having made any contact with the donors. 说以前捐过款的人中的大部分捐款不是通过 fund-raisers的contact。 那么说明 现在与 fund-rasiers contact的都是那些新人啊，说明他们在enlarge the donor base啊。个人的想法啊。
I am now convinced by key A after reading the post of Robertchu as belows:
- robertchu 2004-07-01 23:38:00
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!
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2011-7-13 14:25:14
收藏
收藏
楼主
