A，在联系以前未捐过钱的人的成功率上，SU和其它大学是一样的。因为原文中说“This success rate, exceptionally high for university fund-raisers ”，即80%的成功率比其它学校都高，这就是说SU的成功大部分是基于联系以前捐过款的人。原文的结论就是说SU的成功主要是联系以前捐过款的人。加强了结论。C，大部分来自于以前捐过款的人的捐款都是在未联系捐款人的情况下，捐款人捐的。也就是说只有少部分来自于以前捐过款的人的捐款是因为联系得来的，但是这个信息无法表明捐过款的人的联系成功率的高低以及对总的成功率80%的影响如何，所以无关。
文章的auguement就是最后一句话——the high success rate shows insufficient canvassing effort.这里的canvassing effort实际上说的是为拉人所付出的努力，和拉到多少钱没关啊。
还有，high rate来自于fundraiser所接触的donors，所以说明文章是focus在这些fundraiser所接触到的人群，未接触的就Out of Scope了。
综合以上两点，很容易说明C是无关选项——文章关心的是花了多少精力去拉人，未接触的人捐了多少钱自然就是Out of Scope了。
我一开始做错是因为把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这句话当成了文章的arguement。C看起来很迎合since后面的部分，所以错选C。
I do not think your reasoning is acceptable. The stimulus does say "the fund raisers are succeeded in getting donation from 80% people they contacted", but it does not necessarily mean that "the fund raisers" contacted them this year as well. Since C mentions that most doners come to donate without being contacted by those funder raised, it weakens the arguement without doubt.
I suggest you pay heed to the last two sentences supposed to form conclusion and important supplemented information that could strengthen the persuasion. The conclusion is the successful rate shows insufficient canvasssing effort, and the supplemented information suggests that good funder raiser should try less-likely prospects to enlarge donor base. That means the funder raiser should exert on donors, while C just addressed this point by reversed expression that no funder raiser has done work on donors. C is a related statement and all others are unrelated.
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2008-5-21 15:23:00
