PrepTest 101, Section 3, Question 20
When the Pinecrest Animal Shelter, a charitable organization,(70 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(27 more words not shown)
- AThe directors of(22 more words not shown)
- BPeople who solicit(35 more words not shown)
- CDirectors of charitable(33 more words not shown)
- DDonors of money(36 more words not shown)
- EPeople who contribute(29 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The donors were asked to save this shelter by paying for its repairs. Maybe they'd be delighted to help other shelters too. But maybe they care specifically about Pinecrest and would rather put the extra money toward local dog beds—or have it returned. A donation for one stated purpose doesn't tell us how they'd choose among those alternatives.
Still, the directors aren't proposing a vacation for themselves. Helping another animal shelter is consistent with the broader cause. You could reasonably wonder whether that is already close enough to what donors wanted, without asking them again. The argument needs a rule explaining why the specific promise about repairs matters more than that broader fit.
What we’re looking for
The question adds another requirement: justify getting permission while placing the least restriction on the directors' ability to allocate money. We want a rule that lets donors approve another use when the original purpose can no longer absorb the funds. A rule that bans every change, even with donor approval, would go further than we need.
Working the answers
- A
This locks the money into purposes specified in advance. It doesn't make an exception when donors later approve a different use. The argument asks the directors to obtain permission before giving away the surplus; A is more restrictive because that later permission still wouldn't satisfy its rule.
- BCorrect
Use the money for the stated cause, or, if that becomes impossible, follow the donors' express wishes. Here, the repairs have been paid for, so the surplus can no longer be used to cover those repair costs. The directors should find out what the donors want done with it before sending it elsewhere. This leaves room for the donors to approve the other shelters, choose another use, or request the money back. It protects their choice without imposing a blanket ban on reallocating the surplus.
- C
This requires returning all the money from the appeal, not just the amount left over. That is far more restrictive than asking permission to redirect the surplus. Even if every donor happily approved the proposed gift to other shelters, C would still demand a refund.
- D
Why shouldn't donors be allowed to tell the directors, “Use my money wherever the shelter needs it”? D forbids donors from delegating that discretion even for purposes consistent with the organization. The argument only requires permission for this change of use. A rule can respect that requirement while letting donors grant broader discretion if they choose.
- E
This fits the objection we considered: perhaps donors already trust the directors to adapt to changing circumstances. But that would give the directors a reason to go ahead without specific permission. It doesn't justify the argument's requirement that they ask the donors first.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.