PrepTest 138, Section 2, Question 4
Columnist: The managers of some companies routinely donate(60 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(10 more words not shown)
- AThe profits that(17 more words not shown)
- BManagers who routinely(16 more words not shown)
- CCompany managers often(12 more words not shown)
- DAny charity that(15 more words not shown)
- ECharities often solicit(8 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Giving money to charity sounds admirable. Giving away your neighbor's money without permission is another matter.
That's the columnist's objection to these corporate donations. The money belongs to the owners, not the managers. Calling the recipient a charity doesn't automatically make it acceptable to take someone else's money. I can see why Robin Hood comes to mind: a generous purpose doesn't erase the fact that he stole.
But what if the owners approve? Maybe donating a percentage of the profits is part of the company's established plan. Maybe the owners suggested it. A manager carrying out an approved donation isn't in the same position as someone taking money against its owner's wishes.
What we’re looking for
We're asked to weaken the analogy. I want that difference: permission. The argument treats the fact that managers don't own the money as enough to call the donation theft. It hasn't ruled out the owners' approval.
Working the answers
- A
Some profits reaching the owners doesn't settle whether managers have permission to donate the rest. The donated share could still be taken without approval, or it could be donated with approval. Returning part of the money doesn't establish the distinction we need from Robin Hood.
- BCorrect
The owners consent to the donations. 'Tacit' consent is approval that is understood rather than expressly stated; it doesn't have to mean the owners issued a direct order. Either way, the managers have the owners' approval, which undermines the comparison with stealing.
- C
Managers may donate their own income as well, but those personal donations aren't the conduct being criticized. They're entitled to decide what to do with their own money. The question concerns whether they're entitled to give away the company's profits.
- D
A charity's responsibility to account for its spending concerns what happens after it receives money. Even a well-run charity could receive money that someone took without permission. We need to know whether the managers' donation was authorized, not whether the recipient keeps good records.
- E
Asking companies for donations doesn't establish permission from those companies' owners. A request from a charity cannot, by itself, authorize a manager to give away someone else's money. The charity's fundraising practices leave the columnist's comparison untouched.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.