其次，这个选项最多是EVALUATE题的选项，因为，如果说S的RAISER在说服以前不捐款的DONORS成功率上和别的学校一样（注意as frequently as were fund-raisers for other universities 说明比的就是成功频率），那么，显然其他学校的成功率越高，S的越高，反对结论；反之支持结论。
而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.
我一开始也选了C，但细看下C也绝对错。我们假设S的RAISER从两批人那拿钱，一批是老DONOR， 一批是新DONOR，根据 most of the donations that came to Smithtown University from people who had previously donated to it 说明是来自老DONOR的捐款中大部分were made without the university’s fund-raisers having made any contact with the donors. 不请自来，而RAISER大人CONTACT过的人中80％都老老实实给钱了，所以，那80％更可能是新DONOR，所以RAISER有效率，所以削弱而非加强结论。当然我们也可以说RAISER 接触的就是那非MOST的老DONOR。但首先，这是钻牛角尖；其次，我们想的到，老美想不到；在次，你现在想得到考试时不一定想得到；在此，就算以上都不是，这个也不加强。
首先注意题目的问题：provides more support for the argument（The high success rate shows insufficient canvassing effort），因此，应该选择可以支持（注意，是more support）raser工作做的不好的的选项。
The conclusion: S Uni's fundraisers were not doing a good job. Premise 1: they didn't take sufficient effort to develop new donors. Premise 2: old donors(OD) are more likely to make donations again. --> The people(ND) who haven't donated before are less likely to donate. Premise 3： Good fundraisers are those trying to involve more ND in donating. Premise 4: the success rates are high.
P2 and P4 -> P1; P1 and P3 -> Conclusion
Option C confirms P2, that old donors are more likely to make donations again. Option C: most of the ODs making donations this year made them even without S uni's fundaraisers contacting them.
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2006-10-16 22:54:00
