Economist Marco Castillo and colleagues showed that nuisance costs—the time and effort people must spend to make donations—reduce charitable giving....
GMAT Craft and Structure : (Structure) Questions
Economist Marco Castillo and colleagues showed that nuisance costs—the time and effort people must spend to make donations—reduce charitable giving. Charities can mitigate this effect by compensating donors for nuisance costs, but those costs, though variable, are largely ________ donation size, so charities that compensate donors will likely favor attracting a few large donors over many small donors.
Which choice completes the text with the most logical and precise word or phrase?
supplemental to
predictive of
independent of
subsumed in
Step 1: Decode and Map the Passage
Part A: Passage Analysis Table
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| Economist Marco Castillo and colleagues showed that nuisance costs—the time and effort people must spend to make donations—reduce charitable giving. |
|
| Charities can mitigate this effect by compensating donors for nuisance costs |
|
| but those costs, though variable, are largely ________ donation size |
|
| so charities that compensate donors will likely favor attracting a few large donors over many small donors. |
|
Part B: Passage Architecture & Core Elements
Main Point: Nuisance costs reduce charitable giving, and since these costs have a particular relationship to donation size, charities that compensate donors will prefer fewer large donors over many small donors.
Argument Flow: The passage presents a research finding about how nuisance costs reduce donations, offers compensation as a solution, identifies a key characteristic of these costs relative to donation size, and concludes with the strategic implication for charities.
Step 2: Interpret the Question Precisely
This is a fill-in-the-blank question asking us to choose the best logical connector. The answer must create the right relationship between what comes before and after the blank.
Step 3: Prethink the Answer
- The logical flow shows that because nuisance costs have a specific relationship to donation size, charities will prefer large donors over small donors
- For this to make sense, the nuisance costs must be the same regardless of donation amount—if someone donates $10 or $1000, the time and effort costs are similar
- This would mean it is more efficient for charities to compensate fewer large donors rather than many small donors
- The relationship type needed is one that shows nuisance costs do not change based on donation amount—they remain constant regardless of how much someone gives
supplemental to
supplemental to
- This would mean nuisance costs add to or complement donation size
- This does not explain why charities would prefer large donors
predictive of
predictive of
- This would mean nuisance costs can forecast donation size
- This does not create the right logical relationship to support the conclusion
independent of
independent of
- This means nuisance costs are the same regardless of donation size
- This perfectly explains why charities prefer large donors—same compensation cost but bigger donations
- Creates clear logical flow from cause to effect
subsumed in
subsumed in
- This would mean nuisance costs are already included in donation size
- This would eliminate the need for separate compensation and contradicts the entire premise