PrepTest 127, Section 3, Question 18
Fund-raiser: A charitable organization rarely gives its donors(49 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(9 more words not shown)
- AThe most effective(29 more words not shown)
- BMost charities that(25 more words not shown)
- CEvery charity that(24 more words not shown)
- DMost potential donors(27 more words not shown)
- EThe emotional connection(17 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Donors usually don't get to vote on a charity's policies. But does that mean they have no direct influence? A donor might say, “I'll keep contributing if you spend the money on this program, but not if you redirect it elsewhere.” Even without a formal vote, the donor could affect what the charity does.
The fund-raiser says the inability to influence spending weakens donors' emotional connection, and proposes giving them votes to increase donations. That could be a useful change. I would still want to know how voting changes the relationship. Could it make donors feel involved, or could some donors wonder why the charity needs them to make decisions its managers should be making?
What we’re looking for
My initial concern is the connection between voting and influence. For an assumption the argument depends on, I would look for something needed to make that proposed change work. We shouldn't demand that voting be the only possible way to influence a charity, but the argument needs its proposed voting right to matter in the way the fund-raiser expects.
Working the answers
- A
Voting need not be the most effective way to give donors influence. It could be one useful way even if another method worked better. The conclusion predicts a benefit from this change; it doesn't rank the available methods.
- B
This concerns the history of most charities that successfully increased donations. The argument predicts what giving donors votes could accomplish. Charities could previously have raised more money through publicity or other approaches while greater emotional connection remained a possible way to increase future donations. The past majority need not have used this route.
- C
The argument doesn't need every charity that has tried donor voting to have produced a marked emotional change. A claim about what most charities could probably achieve allows exceptions and doesn't require a universal record of success among past adopters. C is much stronger than the prediction being supported.
- D
A donor could contribute money despite having no influence, then contribute more after becoming more involved. The argument concerns increasing donations, not whether donors refuse to give anything at all. D's cutoff to zero isn't required.
- ECorrect
This identifies another connection we need to examine: emotional connection and the amount donated. Even if voting made donors feel much more involved, why would the charity raise more money?
The argument relies on those feelings being able to affect donations. If emotional connection made no difference to giving, improving it would not supply a reason to expect more money. E states that necessary relationship without requiring every donor to respond in the same way. It addresses a different step from my initial question about influence, but it is essential to the argument.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.