Loading...
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?
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| 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 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. |
|
The argument starts with what seems like positive news (80% success rate), then explains what this rate typically means (normal for past donors), introduces what good practice should look like (contacting harder prospects too), and flips the interpretation to argue this high rate actually shows poor performance.
The high 80% success rate shows the fund-raisers did insufficient canvassing effort, not that they did a good job.
The logic connects the premises through contradiction: if good fund-raisers contact both easy targets (past donors) and hard targets (new prospects), then a rate as high as 80% suggests they only contacted the easy targets, proving they didn't do the broader outreach they should have done.
Weaken - We need to find information that would reduce our belief in the conclusion that the high success rate shows insufficient canvassing effort
The argument makes very specific claims about what 80% success rate means (indicates contacting only past donors) and what good fundraising should look like (contacting less likely prospects too)
To weaken this argument, we need to find scenarios that could explain the 80% success rate WITHOUT it meaning they only contacted past donors. We're looking for alternative explanations that would show the fundraisers actually did a good job despite the high success rate
This tells us that among those who didn't donate, most were past donors. This actually supports the argument rather than weakening it. If past donors are refusing to give while the overall success rate is still \(80\%\), this suggests fund-raisers are getting donations from somewhere else - but this doesn't directly challenge the logic that \(80\%\) success rate indicates insufficient canvassing.
The total amount raised being lower doesn't address the core issue. The argument is about the success rate (\(80\%\)) indicating poor strategy, not about the total dollars raised. Even if less money was raised overall, the argument's logic about what the high success rate means would still stand.
Information about donation sizes compared to other universities is irrelevant to this argument. We're concerned with whether the \(80\%\) success rate indicates insufficient canvassing effort, not how donation amounts compare across institutions.
This describes a secondary benefit of contacting past donors (getting referrals) but doesn't challenge the argument's main point. The argument could still be correct that a \(80\%\) success rate indicates they only contacted past donors, regardless of whether they got referrals from those contacts.
This is the correct answer because it directly contradicts the argument's foundation. The argument assumes that \(80\%\) success rate means they only contacted past donors (easy targets). But if most successful donations came from first-time donors, then the fund-raisers actually did expand the donor base while achieving high success - exactly what good fund-raisers should do. This completely undermines the conclusion that high success rate shows insufficient canvassing.