作业帮GMAT GWD,CR我怀疑这道题答案给错了,请说服我.
来源：学生作业帮 编辑：作业帮 分类：英语作业 时间：2024/11/08 17:08:48
GMAT GWD,CR我怀疑这道题答案给错了,请说服我.
Smithtown University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations fromn 80% of the potential donors they contacted.This sucess 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?
a.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.
c.This year most of the donations that came to Smithtown University from people who had previously donated to it were made withou the uiversity's fund-raisers having made any contact with the donors.
我觉得明显选A,因为c提到没有联系那些donors,这个跟题目其实没有关系,题目讨论的是有联系过的Donor的成功率啊.
1楼我觉得你没有讲清楚。我们来理一下逻辑：文章的意思是说，虽然SU的fund-raisers的成功率看起来有80%，但由于真正成功的rund-raisers会选择开拓新的领域，不去找已经联系的donors了。所以这么高的成功率表现他们没有付出这样的努力。那么那一句话最支持这个论断呢？
a.SU的fund-raisers联系那些没有捐款过的人的成功率和其他学校的差不多。（说明那么高的成功率主要来源于二次捐款的人啊）不是支持了论断么？
c.今年来SU捐款的人中以前就捐款过的大多数不是由rund-raisers联系的。（我们讨论的是那80%的概率，也就是他们联系过的人的概率。更何况，即使这个相关性是有的，从逻辑上看来，大多数都是自己来的，不是由fund-raisers联系的，那么fund-raisers一定联系了好多新的捐款人，不就是和指责他们高成功率来自老客户的论调相反了么！）
怎么可能选c的？
Smithtown University's fund-raisers succeeded in getting donations fromn 80% of the potential donors they contacted.This sucess 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?
a.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.
c.This year most of the donations that came to Smithtown University from people who had previously donated to it were made withou the uiversity's fund-raisers having made any contact with the donors.
我觉得明显选A,因为c提到没有联系那些donors,这个跟题目其实没有关系,题目讨论的是有联系过的Donor的成功率啊.
1楼我觉得你没有讲清楚。我们来理一下逻辑：文章的意思是说，虽然SU的fund-raisers的成功率看起来有80%，但由于真正成功的rund-raisers会选择开拓新的领域，不去找已经联系的donors了。所以这么高的成功率表现他们没有付出这样的努力。那么那一句话最支持这个论断呢？
a.SU的fund-raisers联系那些没有捐款过的人的成功率和其他学校的差不多。（说明那么高的成功率主要来源于二次捐款的人啊）不是支持了论断么？
c.今年来SU捐款的人中以前就捐款过的大多数不是由rund-raisers联系的。（我们讨论的是那80%的概率，也就是他们联系过的人的概率。更何况，即使这个相关性是有的，从逻辑上看来，大多数都是自己来的，不是由fund-raisers联系的，那么fund-raisers一定联系了好多新的捐款人，不就是和指责他们高成功率来自老客户的论调相反了么！）
怎么可能选c的？
选A吧.
A是将SmithTown Univ.的募捐者与潜在捐赠者的主动联系频率跟其它学校的（联系频率）相比,那么两者频率一致的话,就说明SmithTown Univ.的募捐者的做法是符合普遍性的,即他们“做得好”只是因为他们很少找那些之前未捐款者联系,而是找之前有过捐赠经历的人联系.
在这里,“普遍性的做法”就是题目里的论断——高成功率只是说明募捐低效率,也就是说,将该大学募捐者作为一个样本与总体进行比较,如果样本与总体一致,则说明样本本身符合论断.
A是将SmithTown Univ.的募捐者与潜在捐赠者的主动联系频率跟其它学校的（联系频率）相比,那么两者频率一致的话,就说明SmithTown Univ.的募捐者的做法是符合普遍性的,即他们“做得好”只是因为他们很少找那些之前未捐款者联系,而是找之前有过捐赠经历的人联系.
在这里,“普遍性的做法”就是题目里的论断——高成功率只是说明募捐低效率,也就是说,将该大学募捐者作为一个样本与总体进行比较,如果样本与总体一致,则说明样本本身符合论断.