CR: Smithtown University's fund-raisers succeeded

[Everything OR Nothing]

Sorry Ron, This impatience in me is keeping me away from beating the GMAT :).Sorry.

[RonPurewal]

Don't worry about it; it's a common mix-up. I've made it myself quite a few times.

[NL]

The worst-case scenario would be a student who derives emotional security from memorizing tons and tons of facts,

Aha, "emotional security"! But it may bring some advantages? If I have bad memory (the only thing I don't forget is my head because it sticks on my neck) and I artificially develop emotional security from memorizing things, then I may remember things better?

I know the reversed reasoning is not always true, but it may be true for this case?

[RonPurewal]

If you find that something works for you, then you should do it.

[supreet0405]

Hi,

I believe the correct answer is C. The argument says that the fund-raisers were not doing a good job. No where in the argument it is saying that the the fund-raisers did a better job. I don't think good here means better than fund-raisers of other universities as quoted in option A. Better job would mean that we are comparing the job of fund-raisers of Smithtown University with those of other universities.

Please correct me if my thinking is wrong here.

[RonPurewal]

Backward. Choice C actually shows the opposite of what we want to show.

First, translate the argument into terms that a 10-year-old can understand.
No 10-year-old would understand "insufficient canvassing effort". That's bad. So, simplify.
This means "They put too much effort into calling people who had already donated in the past, and didn't put enough effort into calling random people who had NEVER donated".

If choice C is true, though, this means that the fund-raisers put very LITTLE effort into calling the "red people".
Therefore, the 80% success rate must have come mostly from the blue people!
Exactly the opposite of what you want to prove here.

[gbyhats]

I'm sorry for bumping up, I have no questions to ask, but...

Dear Ron, I really want to say thank you for your awesome CR strategy guide!

Just in 1 page, you elaborate the entire knowledge with humor (making my laugh and scared my roommate a little bit) and clarity. People who have been struggling with CR should have read this, as it is brief yet comprehensive.

I really wish I have read this long time ago, so I don't need to go through a month of trial and error to finally figure out the way to tackle CRs

[RonPurewal]

you're welcome.

[harika.apu]

Hi there Guys .....

haven't understood how u are saying that the first is supporting the argument??

I feel that the first one is comparing one type of Fund raisers with the ones from other univeristies .... So, to me, it seems irrelevant.

But option B which says:
"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."

seems more logical for i feel it implies that:
look at the new donors - They on an average have given MORE donations than the new donors. So, HAD the students put in more efforts in canvassing, they would have got MORE donations !!
I know this explanations isn't also air-tight but given the other options, i feel this is a tad better !!

Anyone who can throw some light ??
( BTW: the source I got this from doesnt say the OA to be "A" ..... It says the ans is "C" !! )

nope, choice (b) actually weakens the argument.

when you evaluate these things, remember that you have to keep in mind the MAIN POINT of the argument. in this case, the main point of the argument is that the students are not doing a good enough job of reaching new donors.
choice (b) actually contradicts this notion: if choice (b) is true, then these fund-raisers are actually doing an even better job of getting funds from new donors than they are from existing donors!
(notice that choices (d) and (e) also weaken the argument, for almost exactly the same reason.)

choice (a) supports the argument because it does exactly the opposite of what choices (b), (d), and (e) do: it shows that the fund-raisers are NOT any more successful in their outreach to new donors than are any other fund-raisers. if that's true, that is strong support for the idea that the high percentage is just an artifact of sticking to the most likely donors (which is the point of the argument).

Hello Ron ,
i have a small confusion about option B
as per B amount of donations from new donors is larger than previous donors
So , it is comparing amount - irrelevant because in this argument we are worried about how many new donors contributed
Am i right ?

[RonPurewal]

correct—the $$ amounts are irrelevant here.

[kedieez967]

[RON: oops, i hit 'edit' rather than 'quote', so the post i'm answering is actually gone. however, the relevant part is still preserved as a 'quote'.

this post is written by me.]

i'm not really following you... especially not once i get here:

most of people who had never previously donated to Smithtown University may largely be made up the people who have donated in the past.

hm?
you must have written something incorrectly here, because what you actually wrote is, quite clearly, impossible.
('people who have never done X' and 'people who have done X in the past' are EXACTLY OPPOSITE groups of people. everyone is either one or the other; no one is both.)

[RonPurewal]

in any case, just make sure you can simplify the argument.

the argument is, basically, 'eh... that high percentage means nothing, because they probably just called a bunch of people who have given money before.'

choices D and E are definitely NOT 'out of scope'. both are most certainly relevant, and both are very strong evidence AGAINST the argument. (in fact, choice D is solid PROOF that the argument is wrong.)

[kedieez967]

the stem refer to the people who had donated in the past, in other words, the people who had donated to many universities.
d and e mention the people who had never previously donated to Smithtown University.

so the donation in d and e may come from the people who had never previously donated to Smithtown University but had donated to other universities.

this is why i think donors who had never given to the university in d and e have no influence, even is out of scope.
i understood why a is right. Maybe i over-think this problem.

Many thanks!
Best wishes!

[RonPurewal]

the stem refer to the people who had donated in the past, in other words, the people who had donated to many universities.
d and e mention the people who had never previously donated to Smithtown University.

so the donation in d and e may come from the people who had never previously donated to Smithtown University but had donated to other universities.

ok if this interpretation crosses your mind for a few seconds... but only for a few seconds, since your everyday common sense should reject it without demur.
if you interpret the sentence from the passage this way, then it has nothing at all to do with the issue! clearly, the passage will not 'trick' you with information that is actually useless, so you should IMMEDIATELY set about finding a more sensible interpretation.

[AmanJ289]

Ron,

Excellent guide for people like me who are struggling with CR. I probably belong to the category of people who are trying to learn the shortcuts and tips suggested and at the end frustrating because of poor accuracy. I will start implementing your methodologies and hope that it will help me in improving my scores.

Btw, I have now unlearn all the shortcuts learnt and wont be referring to those notes. Hope it works for me,