#20 - When the Pinecrest Animal Shelter, a charitable

[Jeremy Press]

Hi Albert and scarletterose,

Albert, answer choice D is incorrect because its language is so extreme that it wouldn't even allow the donors to give their permission to do what the directors want to do here. In other words, if the donors cannot delegate the responsibility of allocating funds, the donors cannot give permission to the directors to do what the directors have identified as consonant with the original purpose of the donation (donating surplus to the other animal shelters). The directors would simply have to give the money back to the donors, and the conclusion in the stimulus wouldn't be supported.

Scarletterose, answer choice A is incorrect because of a subtle shift in language: it says the directors can't allocate money for purposes for which the directors had not earmarked funds in advance. But that's not what the stimulus wants: it wants the directors not to use money for purposes for which the donors had not earmarked the funds in advance.

Even if answer choice A fixed that wording problem, it would also be problematic because it doesn't specifically support the positive recommendation in the conclusion that the directors should obtain permission from donors. Answer choice A tells the directors what they can't do. But it doesn't offer any positive guidance that would validate the (positive) recommendation in the conclusion to obtain permission. Answer choice B covers that base by saying that the directors should (in a positive sense) "dispose of the funds according to the express wishes of the donors." If you're going to dispose of the funds according to the donors' express wishes, then you're going to need to get their permission (so you can know what those express wishes are).

I hope this helps!

[Albertlyu]

got it, thank you Jeremy. have a good day.

[hifigirl]

Hi!

In order to arrive at the correct answer choice (B), you have to recognize that the final sentence is the position advocated for. The directors SHOULD OBTAIN permission from those who made the donations.

(A) is eliminated because the directors are being heavily restricted if they cannot allocate publicly solicited funds to any purposes for which the directors had not earmarked the funds in advance. It discredits most of the stimulus, arguing for the directors to donate the surplus of funds. Most importantly, the position advocated for "obtaining permission" is disregarded.
(C) is eliminated because it disregards the position advocated for by suggesting a "return of all the money" rather than appealing to the donors, and heavily restricts the directors to only spend the funds on the relevant cause.
(D) is eliminated because it directly contradicts the position of directors obtaining permission from donors by saying the donors cannot delegate to the directors at all.
(E) is eliminated because it directly contradicts that the directors should obtain permission from those who made the donations, instead advocating for full trust in the directors for "whatever circumstance might arise." Although (E) places least restriction on the directors, it does not adhere to the position advocated for.
(B) is the correct answer choice because it contains keywords "wishes of the donors," although disposing of the funds is wild behavior, it completely adheres to the position advocated for.

It is not the least restrictive but compared to the other answer choices and through process of elimination, (B) is the best answer choice.