Smithtown University’s Fund-Raisers Succeeded in Getting Donations

Question: 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?

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. More than half of the money raised by Smithtown University’s fund-raisers came from donors who had never previously donated to the university.

“Smithtown University’s Fund-Raisers Succeeded in Getting Donations”- this is a GMAT Critical question. This particular GMAT Critical Reasoning topic has been taken from the book ‘GMAT Critical Reasoning-by Manhattan Prep 2014’. In this particular topic, candidates need to choose the option that best suits the passage. GMAT critical reasoning tests the logical and analytical skills of the candidates. Critical reasoning in GMAT requires candidates to find the strengths and weaknesses of the argument, or find the logical flaw in the argument.  The GMAT CR section contains 10 -13 GMAT critical reasoning questions out of 36 GMAT verbal questions.

Answer: A
Explanation:
This is a GMAT critical reasoning question. It is a version of a “weaken” question, and that means that we must have a conclusion here somewhere.

The passage does not connect the evidence to the conclusion. The supporting evidence is this:
Hypothesis: FR has got funds from 80% of the people they contacted. 
Hypothesis: But this isn't a sign of their success
Conclusion: Most people who donate have donated before and are past donors as well who don't need to be motivated to donate. The job of FR is to find more potential 1st-time donors and make them donate. This makes they are failing.

Let us check each and every option one by one:

Option 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 implies that a contender can be a good fundraiser. As it constantly tries less-likely prospects in an effort to expand the donor base. Hence option A is the correct answer. 

Option 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.
In option B it is clearly evident that the percentage of getting donations has increased. It is contrary to how the fund-raiser would have done a good job. Hence option B is incorrect.

Option 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.
Option C argument has already been presented. The statement shows that the fund-raiser did not contact the previous donor. So, they would donate this time as well. 

Option 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.
Option D weakens the conclusion.

Option 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.
Option E weakens the conclusion. 

Suggested GMAT Critical Reasoning Questions

• Shelby Industries Manufactures and Sells the Same Gauges as Jones Industries.
• Unlike a Typical Automobile Loan, Which Requires a Fifteen- to Twenty-Percent Down Payment
• The Interview is an Essential Part of a Successful hiring Program
• James Weighs More Than Kelly. Luis Weighs More Than Mark
• Monthly Employee Evaluations are an Excellent Tool for Managers.
• In a Monogamous Culture, 100% of the Adults are Married.
• Tanco, A Leather Manufacturer, Uses Large Quantities of Common Salt to Preserve Animal Hides.
• Carol is Shorter Than Juan, But She is Taller than Ed. Sandra is Shorter than Juan, and She is Shorter than Ed
• Experienced Pilots often Have More Trouble than Novice Pilots in Learning to Fly
• A library Currently has only Coin-Operated Photocopy Machines, which Cost 10 cents Per Copy.
• Dear Applicant: Thank you for Your Application
• Discussion of Greenhouse Effects Have Usually Had as a Focus the Possibility of Earth Growing Warmer
• Engineers are Investigating the Suitability of Wantastiquet Pass as the Site of a New Bridge
• Josh has Twenty Years of Typing Experience Behind Him
• In their Search for Mayan Ruins in the Jungles of Guatemala Archaeologist
• Art Historian Recently Computer Analysis has Revealed that a Few of a Famous Flemish Artists
• In Three Separate Studies Researchers Compared Children who had Slept with Nightlights
• Until Recently it was Thought that Ink used Before the Sixteenth Century did not Contain
• Polling Data Reveal that an Overwhelming Majority of 9 year Olds can Correctly Identify
• It is Illogical to Infer a Second and Different Effect from a Cause which is known only