Q18 - Fund-raiser: A charitable organization

[aileenann]

In this argument the author jumps from saying that not voting limits the emotions of donors and then conclude that charitable organizations should let donors vote to raise funding by raising emotional levels. This argument seems to assume (among other possibilities) that having emotional reactions somehow leads to more donating. In any case, there is certainly a gap in the argument as it stands now.

Let’s see if any of the answer choice respond to this potential assumption or point out another one we might have failed to notice.

(A) is out of scope. The argument is not interested in the most effective way to give donors control of organization but rather the most effective way to get more donations.
(B) supports the conclusion, but it’s not an assumption of the argument. What "most" charities have done does not prove that this is fail proof. Moreover, this is reaching too deep as well _ we are looking for a necessary conclusion rather than a sufficient one (where most, though too much information, might factor into an answer nonetheless).
(C) confirms a premise, but not a premise that directly links us any better to the conclusion than it does already. We really need an assumption that links emotion rights or fundraising.
(D) would get us to the conclusion, but it is not what the author has in mind. We can see that because the author is putting forward based on emotions rather than based on what donors want for their money explicitly.
(E) is what we have been looking for the whole time _ a connection between donation money and emotions!


#officialexplanation

[eunjung.shin]

In this argument the author jumps from saying that not voting limits the emotions of donors and then conclude that charitable organizations should let donors vote to raise funding by raising emotional levels. This argument seems to assume (among other possibilities) that having emotional reactions somehow leads to more donating. In any case, there is certainly a gap in the argument as it stands now.

Let’s see if any of the answer choice respond to this potential assumption or point out another one we might have failed to notice.

(A) is out of scope. The argument is not interested in the most effective way to give donors control of organization but rather the most effective way to get more donations.

(B) supports the conclusion, but it’s not an assumption of the argument. What "most" charities have done does not prove that this is fail proof. Moreover, this is reaching too deep as well _ we are looking for a necessary conclusion rather than a sufficient one (where most, though too much information, might factor into an answer nonetheless).
(C) confirms a premise, but not a premise that directly links us any better to the conclusion than it does already. We really need an assumption that links emotion rights or fundraising.
(D) would get us to the conclusion, but it is not what the author has in mind. We can see that because the author is putting forward based on emotions rather than based on what donors want for their money explicitly.
(E) is what we have been looking for the whole time _ a connection between donation money and emotions!

Shouldnt E say "emotional connection potential donors feel [b][can be affected /b] by the Amount of money that charity raises.

That was the sole reason I didnt pick E because the order that is needed to link p-c was reversed.

[testtakernce]

(B) supports the conclusion, but it’s not an assumption of the argument. What "most" charities have done does not prove that this is fail proof. Moreover, this is reaching too deep as well _ we are looking for a necessary conclusion rather than a sufficient one (where most, though too much information, might factor into an answer nonetheless).

My question is how would be diagram the conclusion and answer choice B. I've noticed that I'm struggling with diagramming conditional statements without indicator words like if, then, must. I'm having a hard time seeing how answer choice B is a sufficient conclusion.


I diagrammed the conclusion as: give donors right to vote---> (most) charities could increase the amount of money they raise through donations

I diagrammed answer choice B as: making potential donors feel a greater emot. connection-----> (most) charities that have increased the amount ......

Did I diagram correctly?


Any help would be appreciated!!!

[veengeecomm]

I took B to be an analogy NOT an assumption. It helps the argument, but it doesn't get us to where the stimulus is taking us. Is this an ok method for eliminating an AC?

[NatalieC941]

I am having difficulty understanding why B is incorrect and why E is definitely the correct answer. Both discuss the link between emotional connection and amount of money charity raises. How is the original conditional diagram supposed to look? Is it that the order of the conditional for B is wrong?

[ohthatpatrick]

In order for an answer to be correct on Necessary Assumption, it must be true that
“If we negate the answer, it deals a serious weakening blow to the argument”

If we negate (B), we’re hearing
“49% of charities that have increased their donations have done so by making people feel more emotionally connected.”

Does that deal a serious weakening blow?

It doesn’t seem to, to me. First of all, if 49% of charities that have raised money have done so by this method, they it seems like a pretty legit method! That pretty much goes along with the conclusion.

Meanwhile, if we negate (E), we’re hearing
“The emotional connection donors feel CANNOT AFFECT the amount of money raised through donations”.

Does that weaken? Holy crap, yes!

Thus, (E) is our answer.

(The reason you probably like B is because if it said “Most charities that have made potential donors feel a greater emotional connection to the charity have seen an increase in the amount of money they raise through donations” it would be a decent answer)

(B) is saying, “Most of the people who have seen a certain RESULT have used the author’s METHOD.”
a fixed version of (B) would say, “Most of the people who have used the author’s METHOD have seen that certain RESULT.”

[abrenza123]

I'm having serious issues with the wording of B and how it is reversing the causal relationship assumed by the author that EC causes increase in Donations.

"Most charities that have increased the amount of money they raise through donations have done so by making potential donors feel a greater emotional connection to the charity"

Isn't that saying that "most charities that have used the author's METHOD have seen the RESULT" because the author uses the words "have done so by" - that makes me think that the AC is saying that the cause was EC. if they didn't say "have done so by" and just said "have made the potential donors feel greater sense of emotional connection" would reverse the causation.

I eliminated B based on tense/temporal aspect of "most charities have" - I didn't think it was NECESSARY for most charities to have raised money by EC - if it was negated and it was few charities, that could be because they used other methods, and doesn't preclude most charities now by using EC to raise money.

Also, I ruled out B b/c it reverses the some/most variables - that the conclusion says EC -m-> RM and answer choice B says Raise Money -m-> EC

Would anybody be able to clarify if the above is sound reasoning and how B shows reverse causation???

[ohthatpatrick]

You're correct on both counts.

The past tense is totally irrelevant; the author doesn't need to assume anything what has already transpired.

And you're correct that (B) is also wrong because it's reversing the most statement. You just said the same thing I said, in different words.

You said:
answer choice B says Raise Money -m-> EC
and
the conclusion says EC -m-> RM


I said:
(B) is saying,
“Most of the people who have seen a certain RESULT have used the author’s METHOD.”
and [the argument version would be]
“Most of the people who have used the author’s METHOD have seen that certain RESULT.”

The RESULT is raising money. The METHOD is emotional connection.

The first part of your post didn't make a lot of sense to me. (B) is definitely saying that EC is the cause of RM. But the author, if anything, would be assuming "most people who have done EC have seen RM", not "most people who have seen RM have acquired it via EC."

I was never saying that (B) reverses the causal relationship (it's not saying that "raising money caused people to have a greater emotional connection"). Just that it's a reversed MOST statement.