GWD31-01-29

buddha0511

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.

答案是C。我怎么觉得这句话像是削弱呢？“大部分的‘回头客募捐’和fund-raisers 没关系”不是说明fund-raisers 的成就是从第一次募捐的人那里得来的吗?还是我的理解有误啊？

请高人指点一下吧～

zhaoyak7

这题答案是A.本题的结论是good fund-raisers constantly try less-likely prospects in an effort to expand the donor base.即好的集资人是要扩大增量，而存量的集资人集资高不能说明他们工作好。在扩大增量方面——即原先没集资的人方面——根据原文S大学和其它大学做的差不多as frequently as 。而存量方面S大学做的好，而这恰恰不能说明S大学的集资有成效。和原文结论的意思是一致的。

C我觉得捐款方式应该是无关选项。

BDE都是在说新的捐款人和新的捐款如何多，是削弱，和原文意思相悖

buddha0511

   原来如此，也就是说S大学开发新投资人的情况和其他学校相同，那么他的高成功率就不能说明高canvassing effort了！

      谢谢解答

mbz

以下是引用zhaoyak7在2006-7-31 0:26:00的发言：

这题答案是A.本题的结论是good fund-raisers constantly try less-likely prospects in an effort to expand the donor base.即好的集资人是要扩大增量，而存量的集资人集资高不能说明他们工作好。在扩大增量方面——即原先没集资的人方面——根据原文S大学和其它大学做的差不多as frequently as 。而存量方面S大学做的好，而这恰恰不能说明S大学的集资有成效。和原文结论的意思是一致的。

C我觉得捐款方式应该是无关选项。

BDE都是在说新的捐款人和新的捐款如何多，是削弱，和原文意思相悖

I don't agree.

the conclusion is: The high success rate shows insufficient canvassing effort.

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.

C says exactly what the conclusion wants to prove, hence it is the correct answer.

buddha0511

    我同意最后一句是结论，不过答案还是A比较合理。C的意思是旧的捐款和 fund-raisers 无关，岂不是说fund-raisers筹的钱都是新路子来的！那应该是削弱吧！

mbz

以下是引用buddha0511在2006-7-31 19:42:00的发言：

    我同意最后一句是结论，不过答案还是A比较合理。C的意思是旧的捐款和 fund-raisers 无关，岂不是说fund-raisers筹的钱都是新路子来的！那应该是削弱吧！

the conclusion is: The high success rate shows insufficient canvassing effort, which means that even though a lot of money was raised, those fund did not come from the official's hard work.

C says that those money actually came from people who had not been contacted by the officials, which proves exactly what the conclusion says.

cynthia628

canvass  v.    游说，拉选票（try and get support from a group of people）
这道题难就难在不知道原文argument是支持expand the donor base(寻找新的donors),还是get donation from those who have donated before.问题的症结就在于对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.这句话的理解。理解：相反的是，由于更有可能捐钱的是那些以前已经捐过的人，所以一个好的资金募集者会努力扩大donor base,即寻找新的捐助者，即使这是一件不太可能成功的事（less-likely prospects）。（这样以后就会有更多人捐钱了）。
 而高获捐率反映出SU的资金募集者没有付出足够多的努力进行游说。
    A ,SU 的fund-raiser在于没有捐过钱的potential donors上获得捐助的成功的频率和其他大学时一样的。（既然是一样的，那就不存在比较，也就无法反映SU的fund-raisers没有付出足够多的努力。）
    B,SU的fund-raisers在今年从以前没有捐过钱的donors上获得捐助的资金数比去年更多。（原文是说SU的fund-raisers总是找以前捐过钱的donors，而不去expand donors base.而B选项的描述恰好与原文相反，是削弱原文，而不是加强。所以B错误）
    C，大多数的捐助来自于以前捐过钱的donors，而获得这些捐助不需要fund-raisers与他们进行联系。（正好说明SU的fund-raisers没有付出sufficient effort to expand donors base,与原文方向一致，加强原文。）
D，今年大多数的钱是来自于那些以前没有捐过钱的donors(D 选项也说明SU的fund-raises在expand donors base 方面是付出了努力的。削弱原文，D错误)
    E今年超过一半的钱是来自于那些以前没有捐过钱的donors(E 选项的表述和D选项的表述意思相近，也是削弱了原文，所以E错误)

综上所述，BDE与原文方向相反，错误。C比A与原文建立的联系更直接，且加强原文，所以答案选C。




其实这道题的快速做法是按照选项与原文的方向是否一致来做题。
原文（好的fund-raiser会expand donors base,而SU的fund-raiser没有付出足够多的努力，说明不好，那就是靠以前捐过钱的那些人。）
  至于每个选项与原文的方向关系，在上面已经说明，直接就可以选出C.

不知道我的理解是否不正确，希望指正。

forever2486

我同意最后一句是结论。
我也选了C，但仔细看一下，A是对的。

关键词在题干中“contact”即80%的捐款都来自fund-raisers联系过的人。（推出20%的捐款来自没有联系过的人。）
C项中“大部分的款项来自fund-raisers没有联系过的老doners”，与题干矛盾。（20%是大部分？）

A中SU与其他大学canvassing成功的frequency是一样高的，就支持了结论中的“insufficient"。就是说，就算SU80%这个比例远高于其他大学，它在doner的扩展上却和其他大学处于同等水平。
A句的理解我觉得有点复杂，建议多读几遍。