Last visit was: 21 Nov 2024, 19:51 It is currently 21 Nov 2024, 19:51

Close

GRE Prep Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GRE score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel
SORT BY:
Kudos
GRE Prep Club Team Member
Joined: 20 Feb 2017
Posts: 2508
Own Kudos [?]: 3621 [2]
Given Kudos: 1053
GPA: 3.39
Send PM
GRE Prep Club Team Member
Joined: 20 Feb 2017
Posts: 2508
Own Kudos [?]: 3621 [1]
Given Kudos: 1053
GPA: 3.39
Send PM
GRE Prep Club Team Member
Joined: 20 Feb 2017
Posts: 2508
Own Kudos [?]: 3621 [0]
Given Kudos: 1053
GPA: 3.39
Send PM
Manager
Manager
Joined: 18 Jan 2022
Posts: 69
Own Kudos [?]: 52 [0]
Given Kudos: 144
Send PM
Re: Smithtown Universitys fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations fro [#permalink]
GeminiHeat wrote:
Explanation

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.

Option A points that the success of Smithtown University’s fund-raisers were same as that of other university fund-raisers with potential donors who never contributed before. If yes, then 80% exceptionally high rate for a university standard rate comes in from donors who do contribute frequently or did previously contribute. This implies that they did not achieve much success in expanding their donor base. Hence, the high success rate shows insufficient canvassing effort. This provides support for the argument.

(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.

Average depends on the sum and number of people. It could be that Sum is really huge but number of people are less. We are talking about donor base i.e. number of people. Eliminated.


(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.

This option is a contender. But the trap is "without having made any contact with the donors." We are evaluating their canvassing effort. So this option is irrelevant.

(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.

Does not indicate if the university guys made an effort to contact them. Canvassing efforts are not highlighted.

(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.

It could be that few users donated huge sum. Doesn't mean that donor base increased. Incorrect.

Answer: A


GeminiHeat - Thanks fort the explanation. I am having a really hard time in understanding the meaning of it. Can you kindly elaborate on it. Thanks.

(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.
Manager
Manager
Joined: 18 Jan 2022
Posts: 69
Own Kudos [?]: 52 [0]
Given Kudos: 144
Send PM
Re: Smithtown Universitys fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations fro [#permalink]
GeminiHeat wrote:
Quote:
GeminiHeat - Thanks fort the explanation. I am having a really hard time in understanding the meaning of it. Can you kindly elaborate on it. Thanks.

(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.


A says that the fundraisers had only average success when they sought contributions from people who had never donated. Already this suggests that the fundraisers are unexceptional. But, more importantly, if they only had average success with those who had never donated, how could they possibly have achieved their 'unusually high' 80%? This only seems possible if they focused mostly on past donors, as the argument contends. If they didn't approach many new donors, that would boost their overall success rate, because they were focusing on high probability targets, more so than is normal for university fundraisers, giving them an excellent conversion rate. They weren't especially good at picking the apples from the top of the tree, but by focusing on the low hanging fruit, they still had a great success percentage overall.


Thanks @Gmeniniheat.
Prep Club for GRE Bot
Re: Smithtown Universitys fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations fro [#permalink]
Moderators:
GRE Forum Moderator
37 posts
GRE Instructor
234 posts
GRE Instructor
1065 posts

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne