Logical Reasoning

PT101 · S3 · Q20 When the Pinecrest Animal Shelter

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one
Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step
81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

When the Pinecrest Animal Shelter, a charitable organization, was in danger of closing because it could not pay for important repairs, its directors appealed to the townspeople to donate money that would be earmarked to pay for those repairs.

Conclusion

Before the directors donate surplus funds to other animal shelters, they should obtain permission from the donors.

Evidence

The donors offered their money in response to important repairs that Pinecrest needed to make, or else it would be in danger of closing, but the shelter took in more than enough money to cover the repairs.

Evaluate

The conclusion we're trying to strengthen is that directors of the shelter should ask for permission before passing someone's donation on to another recipient.

After all, the donors thought they were contributing to necessary repairs for Pinecrest. They might not have offered money if they thought it was going to other animal shelters.

Goal

So we probably want something like,

if you're going to use donated money for a purpose that's obtain different from why the donors → permission offered their money in the first first place

Or the contrapositive,

The weird part of this question stem is that we're not only trying to justify this conclusion but also try to put the least restriction on how directors allocate funds. So we might have to worry if an answer choice is too strong / too restrictive.

20.

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?

The directors of charitable organizations
Stronger than Correct Answer
These donations were publicly solicited funds (the directors appealed to the townspeople). According to this rule, the directors can only use these funds for the earmarked purpose of paying for repairs to Pinecrest shelter. Using this rule we would conclude that the directors can't donate the surplus funds to other animal shelters. We want to match a conclusion that's saying "maybe we can, but ask permission first". In short, this answer would place a huge restriction on how the directors allocate funds, and the question stem asked for the least restriction.
9% picked this
Correct
People who solicit charitable donations
Why this is right
The directors did solicit these donations from the public for the specific cause of repairing the shelter. Since there were more than enough funds donated, it's impossible to use the surplus funds on repairs (the shelter has already been repaired). According to this rule, the directors should use those leftover funds according to the express wishes of the donors. This creates the possibility for the directors to call the donors and seek their permission to pass on the excess funds to another animal shelter: "Hi, this is the director of Pinecrest. You donated some money for repairs. We ended up having more than enough. Do you wish for me to donate your contribution to another local animal shelter?" This answer wins because it provides the directors with some flexibility in terms of where these excess donations go.
Skill tested: Principle-Strengthen · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
62% picked this
Directors of charitable organizations who
Too Strong
This rule would force the directors to give all the surplus donated money back to the donors, since more money was received than can practicably be used for the earmarked purpose of repairing the shelter. This rule would be like (A), heavily restricting how the directors allocate funds.
2% picked this
Donors of money to charitable
Opposite
This answer would be nice if it said that "donors can grant directors" the leeway to allocate funds to any of various purposes that fit the same general vibe of "helping an animal shelter". Since this rule says that donors cannot delegate to directors that flexibility, it is not a rule that helps our directors pass on the excess funds to other animal shelters.
6% picked this
People who contribute money to
Too Weak
This rule gives the directors the least restriction in how they use funds. It's essentially saying, "people who donate should trust that the directors will use the money in whatever wise fashion they choose". But this rule does nothing to justify the conclusion, then, that "directors can't just pass on this money to other shelters without first obtaining permission from the donors". It would make it seem like they don't need to obtain permission.
21% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill

LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free