When the Pinecrest Animal Shelter, a charitable organization, was in danger of closing because it could not pay for i...

Ravi August 20, 2019

@Julie-V,

Let's look at (D) and (E).

(D) says, "Donors of money to charitable organizations cannot delegate
to the directors of those organizations the responsibility of
allocating the funds received to various purposes consonant with the
purposes of the organization as the directors of the organization see
fit."

The conclusion in the stimulus is about what the directors should do.
It's not about what the donors should do, so no information about the
donors is going to help us to justify the position advocated in the
stimulus while placing the least restriction on the allocation of
funds by directors of charitable organizations, so we can get rid of
(D).

(E) says, "People who contribute money to charitable organizations
should be considered to be placing their trust in the directors of
those organizations to use the money wisely according to whatever
circumstance might arise."

The argument's conclusion is that the directors should ask for and get
permission from donors before donating the surplus funds to animal
shelters. (E) simply says that we should trust the directors; however,
this does not do anything to justify the position advocated that the
directors should obtain permission. Thus, (E) is out.

Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any other questions!