LSAT Explanation PT 24, S3, Q20: When the Pinecrest Animal Shelter, a

LSAT Question Stem

Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the position advocated above and yet places the least restriction on the allocation of funds by directors of charitable organizations? 

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is a Principle question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is B. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

In this LSAT problem, we have a Principle question. Our task is to find the principle that justifies the position advocated in the passage and places the least restriction on the allocation of funds by directors of charitable organizations. The correct answer is B.

First, let's analyze the argument in the passage:

Premise: The Pinecrest Animal Shelter received more funds than needed for the repairs.

Conclusion: The directors should obtain permission from the donors before using the surplus funds for other purposes (donating to other animal shelters).

Now, let's create an "Evaluate" question for this argument: "Is it necessary to obtain donors' permission before using the surplus funds for other purposes?"

Let's discuss each answer choice:

A) This answer choice is too restrictive. It states that directors cannot allocate publicly solicited funds to any purposes for which they had not specifically earmarked the funds in advance. This means that even if the directors obtain permission from the donors, they still can't use the surplus funds for other purposes. This does not help to justify the conclusion.

B) This is the correct answer. It states that people who solicit charitable donations for a specific cause should spend the funds only on that cause or, if that becomes impossible, dispose of the funds according to the express wishes of the donors. This principle strengthens the conclusion that the directors should obtain permission from the donors before using the surplus funds for other purposes and places the least restriction on the allocation of funds.

C) This answer choice is too restrictive. It states that directors must return all the money received from an appeal if more money is received than can practicably be used for the purposes specified in the appeal. This means that the directors cannot use the surplus funds for other purposes, even if they obtain permission from the donors.

D) This answer choice is out of scope. It states that donors cannot delegate the responsibility of allocating funds to the directors. It doesn't address the issue of obtaining permission from donors before using the surplus funds for other purposes.

E) This answer choice weakens the conclusion. It states that donors should trust the directors to use the money wisely according to whatever circumstances might arise. This implies that the directors don't need to ask for permission if they want to use the surplus funds for other purposes.

In conclusion, answer choice B is the correct answer, as it justifies the position advocated in the passage and places the least restriction on the allocation of funds by directors of charitable organizations.