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.
选C,我的思路是:
1. 首先找到加强的点 , ”.... , DOES NOT indicate that they were doing a good job",即承认学校没有做到本职工作。
2. A. " S University's fund-raisers were SUCCESSFUL in their contacts...",承认学校做到,与加强点背道而此,且与其他学校作比较,无关选项。A排除。
C. " ... WITHOUT the university's fund-raisers having made..." , 否认学校做到本职工作,与加强点方向一致。 选C。
欢迎指出逻辑错误点,打醒我。
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论