Columnist: The managers of some companies routinely donate a certain percentage of their companies' profits each year to charity. Although this practice may seem totally justified and even admirable, it is not. After all, corporate profits are not the property of the managers, but of the companies' owners. The to give to the poor, but he was nevertheless stealing.
What this question is testing
Conclusion
The columnist says: managers donating company profits to charity isn't actually justified — it might look noble, but it's wrong.
Evidence (the analogy)
Profits belong to the owners. So a manager giving them away is like Robin Hood — giving to the poor with someone else's money. Robin Hood was still a thief.
Evaluate
The whole argument hangs on the Robin Hood analogy. What made Robin Hood a thief was that he took the rich people's money without their permission. If the owners actually agree with what the managers are doing — even quietly, by allowing it to keep happening — then the manager isn't taking anything against the owner's will. The Robin Hood comparison falls apart.
Goal
An answer that says the owners do, in fact, consent.
Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.