GWD-2-Q14

[agk99]

GWD-2-Q14:
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. 既然未捐赠人的比率和别的大学一样高,说明80%的高比率并不是来自未捐赠人,支持了结论
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.
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.
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.
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.



這題大夥怎麼選，A, B, C好像都說的過去呢

答案講最多的是A

[micht]

這一題之前討論過~~選不出來

請看 GWD 10-29

http://www.formosamba.com/phpBB3/viewtopi ... nd-raisers

[汪汪北鼻]

請問一下，我的題本中GWD2 Verbal並沒有看到14,17,19,21這幾題，但為什麼你們討論時會出現這幾題呢? 請幫我解惑，謝謝

[agk99]

你老兄肯定不是在咖啡館下載的
請認名正字標記的喔!!

[汪汪北鼻]

你老兄肯定不是在咖啡館下載的
請認名正字標記的喔!!

我是在咖啡店下載的
剛又去看了一下

No.2
Gmat: EBEED, BDECC, EEACB, BBCBD, CCABD(此為Math解答，沒有Verbal)
而12,14,17,19,21為Gmat2的verbal, 但卻出現Gwd2 Verbal的討論，難怪我會錯亂
M: 2~5DBAB, 6~10EEEEE, 11~15DDCDE, 16~20BCEDC, 22~26AEBAA, 28A, 29E, 34~36CED
V: 2~4EBD 5~8EDDC 10.B 11.E 12.E 18.D (沒有14,17,19,21這幾題)

所以Gwd2正確的解答是不是這樣
No.2
Gmat: EBEED, BDECC, EEACB, BBCBD, CCABD 12.D 14.AorC<不確定> 17.C 19.B 21.D
M: 2~5DBAB, 6~10EEEEE, 11~15DDCDE, 16~20BCEDC, 22~26AEBAA, 28A, 29E, 34~36CED
V: 2~4EBD 5~8EDDC 10.B 11.E 12.E 18.D

[freeisland]

Fund-raisers who try less-likely prospects -> Good FRs

A is the correct answer.
A states that FRs contacts potential donors as frequestly as, means no more than, those of other universities. If FRs in SU didn't contract more potential donors, they are not good FRs.

[jinoliway]

呼 看了大家的討論 （雖然我是新人）我還是希望 可以講講我的想法：
我先把題目 換成簡單的中文：
S大學成功地從那些有可能捐款的人（當中的80%)得到足夠的款項;然而卻不能夠算是幹的好。由於大多數會捐款的人都是那些過去捐過的人，所以好的籌資人通常不會花太多心力去擴充捐款人的數量。如此高的成功率代表著遊說力不足。

A: S大學的籌資人成功地和那些可能捐款（過去不曾捐款）的人（保持/取得）聯繫;頻繁的程度就和其他大學一般。

C：以往曾捐款給S大的那些人，今年大多數都是在籌資人沒有通知的情況下，進行捐款。

我的想法其實很簡單，文章給我的暗示是：成功的籌資人在於遊說並保持住那些以往的捐款者，而非找新的捐款人。

重要的一點是，題目問的是support for the argument, 我想大家會覺得混沌是因為不清楚argument。對我來說，argument就是末句"如此高的成功率代表著遊說力不足";很明顯的是負面的句子。所以，我很自然的選了C，說明他們遊說力不足。

另外，要是回頭看看文中"會捐的人，大多是過去捐過的"，以及"好籌資人不太會試著擴大捐款者數量"這兩句話的關連，可以明顯知道，這文章背後所認為的sufficient canvassing effort其實是保持老客戶而非找一堆新客戶。

C答案中說明，老客戶們雖然都捐了，但卻不是那些籌資人的功勞。如果把末句的insufficient想成inefficient的話會更好理解。
而我不選A選項最大的原因，是因為我認為其他大學的得作為，事實上與本文是不太相關的;就算是排除不相關，這選項雖然告訴我們S大花了很大的力氣去聯繫潛力客戶，但卻不是本argument所認定的好籌資人。

說了落落長，希望指教。

[starsailing]

因為 SU 的 FRs 在(曾經捐錢過的)可能慕得款項的群體中維持了八成
但是好的 FRs 會去擴大可能募款全體的 base
也就是說 good FRs 應該要去 canvass 不曾有捐款紀錄的人
然後 SU的FRs canvass 不曾捐款人的紀錄和其他學校的 FRs 一樣
在題目對於 Good FRs 的定義下
SU 的 FRs 並沒有"比較"優秀
換句話說 SU 的 FRs 在遊說"過去不曾捐款人"的群體中
"並沒有"比其他學校的 FRs 成功

所以 A 可以合理解釋題目

請指教

[Penny Lee]

GWD-2-Q14:
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.

簡單的說,不會捐款的人怎麼call他,他還是不會捐,這倒是支持了原文

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.

是不是否定了前提阿? 因為題目說都有跟他們連絡要來捐款,但C說沒有跟他們聯絡就自己來捐款了

[A級垂耳兔]

這題不太好選...不過答案是A....
題幹說到募款人接觸的捐款者中...80%是以前捐過錢的...這個比例很異常...
會捐款的人都是過去捐過且可能再捐款的人...所以反應募款人的遊說不足夠....

答案A有否定weaken的架構...這種架構是平常我們比較不習慣的...
若遊說者共接觸100潛在捐款人..沒捐過錢的20人...有捐過錢的80人...共80人捐錢...有20人是以前沒捐過錢的..60人以前捐過錢...這樣就weaken了募款人的遊說不足夠的推論(因為比較基礎不相同)

若捐款者接觸的潛在捐款人(以前沒捐過錢的)和其他學校一樣多...假設都是40人
那上述例子變成...
100潛在捐款人..沒捐過錢的40人...有捐過錢的60人...共80人捐錢...有20人是以前沒捐過錢的..60人以前捐過錢...
沒捐過錢的募款成功率下降至50%....募款遊說不足~~~

答案C募款者並沒有接觸..請注意本題討論捐款者是募款人有接觸為前提....故答案C完全不在討論範圍...無關選項~~~