Southington University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations from 80 percent of the potential donors they contacted this year. This rate would be the expected rate if the only potential donors contacted were those who have donated in the past. But good fund-raisers constantly contact less likely prospects in an effort to expand the donor base. Thus the high success rate, far from showing that the fund-raisers did a good job, shows insufficient canvassing effort.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
Among potential donors contacted by Southington University's fund-raisers, the majority of those who did not make donations were people who had made donations to the university in the past.
The amount of money raised by Southington University's fundraisers this year was lower than the amount they had raised in any of the previous several years.
Individual donations made to Southington University this year were, on average, slightly larger than were average individual donations made to many other universities.
Fund-raisers contacting past donors are not only to get new donations but also to get names of potential new donors to contact.
The majority of the donations that fund-raisers succeeded in getting for Southington University were from donors who had never given to the university before.
背景:fund-raisers从联系过的80%的人那里获得了捐款,这个数据只可能是之前他们捐过钱的人捐的。但真正好的fund-raisers会去联系那些更不可能捐钱的人来扩大潜在的捐款范围
结论:这些fund-raisers远非好的fund-raisers
所以!!好的。。。远非。。。⚠️那么就是没有联系新的人啊
[一定要注意类似定义的新词的表达,比如这边文中的good fund-raisers!!!!!!!]
纠结在DE
D选项比较模糊,看着像新的人也捐钱了
E选项完全说新的人几乎没有捐钱,证明了不是good fund-raisers✅
这道题是要weaken他们不是一个好的fund raiser诶
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论