GWD-10-29

草稿纸

哇，挖到牛棚了，看来大家都栽到了 C 上啊，哈哈。

蚊子漫步

恐怖的一道题，真的上考场遇到它也一样载

tyn0328

lawyer_1的解释太强悍了！！！！支持！！！！！！！！！

shelley0507

lawyer神膜拜~~讨论了六年的牛帖啊~~开眼界了
终于悟出了：A说的是fund raiser在接触从来没捐过钱的人时的成功率和其他学校一样。从原文知道总的成功率远高于其他学校。由此推出接触从来没捐过钱的比例小。因此support原文。
而C是说大部分以前捐过钱的根本不用fund raiser去联络。就是说fund raiser的工作对象基本不是以前捐过的，也就是新的。削弱了原文。

buffonjuventus

厉害呀……！Lawyer，是在考LSAT吗？神一样的人物，无数难贴都是看他的解释明白的

chengleigogo

我的理解是：募捐的比例在大学中是很高的，但是以前从未联系过的募捐人和别的学校一样，说明还是已经募捐过的人对那个高的比例做的贡献大，也就是说他们本身没做很好的工作，没联系到比别的学校更多的新的募捐者。

C是说大多数来捐款的人是以前就捐过的，他们没有经过联系。这只是在捐款人中的以前捐款的集合中讨论，而另一个集合是以前没捐款的，显然这道题主要是说他们工作做的不好是说他们有没有联系到新的募捐人，所以这个选项对另一部分没有影响，应该是无关选项

这道题主要是看清楚募捐人中分两类，一类是以前捐过的，一类是以前没捐过的，而他们的工作做的好不好主要是看有没有找到新的募捐人，而A就是在说他们没有找到比别的学校多的新的募捐人，说明他们的工作做的不好。而C只是在说大部分以前捐过的人是没有经过联系就来的，不能说明新的募捐人的信息。当然如果不分析AC是看不出分两类人的

sataharu

穿越时空的感谢。。。

pizzahutgg

这个题的A长的很像其他逻辑题的错误选项，就是不涉及题目情境的无关比较，但是此题缺隐含了比较的因素，从比较中看出学校的fund raising 做的怎么样，而且发现所有逻辑选项都是长句，不能分开写成简单句，更变态啊。。。

jaze

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!

-- by 会员 robertchu (2004/7/1 23:38:00)

you did a good job !

xjtufu

捐款人有两类：处女捐和非处女捐
看A项，大家的处女捐相等，但是某大学比例高达80%，肯定非处女捐严重超标。。。