扫描二维码，直接登录
题库 / GMATLA-CR-3
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.
另外一个地方出现了这道题，那里正确答案选的是D，但那里没有A选项，这道题变体很多，不知道以哪个为准
D是削弱，另外一个题的问题可能不一样。
D怎么会是削弱呢？这个团队争取到的好多捐款人都是之前没有捐过的，正说明这个团队
逻辑题的削弱与加强指的是对逻辑链的削弱和加强，而不是题中讨论的事。这道题的逻辑症结点：曾捐过钱的人占80%，较高占比反而说明募款人不努力，没有用力联系以前未捐助的人的人。D：捐款的大部分来自以前未捐款的人。那说明80捐过款的人不是主力啊，未捐过钱的人反而贡献很大，那募捐者是很好的开发了未捐过款的人的，这样的话会削弱了原文argument。A：募捐人对于之前未捐款人所作出的努力，和其他学校是一样的。加强了原文argument：募捐人没有努力的联系这一部分人。
哦，经你这么一说，我还是突然明白了好多
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论