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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
More than half of the money raised by Smithtown University's fund-raisers came from donors who had never previously donated to the university.
我对C选项的理解是,今年大多数从以前捐赠过的人中所获得的捐赠都不是通过大学联系的,而是自己来的。这个和能不能证明大学有没有努力开发新用户无关,因为讨论已经是在旧用户了。不知道这样理解对不对。
我觉得这题的点在于强化这些筹资的人没有努力这个点。
这些校友没有经过联系就捐钱是不能推出这些人努力不够的点。
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论