Logical reasoning PrepTest 101 · Section 3 · Question 20

Incorrect. This principle makes it impossible to use funds for purposes other than what they were solicited for. That's too restrictive, as the argument leaves open the possibility that it can reallocate those funds after checking with the donors.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen (Principle)

Stimulus Summary:
Problem - An animal shelter needed money for repairs or it would close
Solution - Collect donations from the townspeople earmarked for those repairs
Follow-up - More money was collected than was needed for repairs
Option - Give that extra money to other animal shelters
Conclusion judgment - Reach out to the donors to get permission before doing so

Answer Anticipation:
This question stem is interesting. It's a fairly straightforward Strengthen (Principle) question, until it adds another criteria—we need a principle that "places the least restrictions" on how charities can spend their money. That makes it a little closer to a Strengthen with Necessary Premise question—we're looking for a principle that justifies the action taken by this charity, but one that doesn't place more restrictions than needed on them.

Let's start by identifying what we have to find a principle supporting. Here, the conclusion is that the director of a charity that ended up with more donations for a specific purpose than needed should check with the donors before using that money for something else. The money was collected for repairs, so the donors should have a say in whether the extra money should go to other shelters.

However, let's also be wary of answers that are strong or broad—they may place additional restrictions on the director of a charitable organization, and the question stem tells us the correct answer will avoid that.

Answer Explanation:
This answer is specifically tailored to the situation as described, so it justifies the position advocated without placing additional restrictions. The Pinecrest shelter solicited charitable donations for repairs. It became impossible to spend some of that money on repairs (since they were all made), and the argument stated that they needed to check in with the donors before spending it on something else. This answer matches those details, so this is the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
Always be careful when you see a question stem that's this long and breaks out of the standard pattern that you see in a given question type! The additional information, or the change to the norm, is going to be key in finding the correct answer.

Incorrect. The argument creates a carve-out for reallocating that money if the donors agree, so this answer mandating that the money be returned is too restrictive.

Incorrect. This answer is a bit out of scope and restrictive—in fact, delegating this responsibility to the directors would be a great way for the situation in the stimulus to be resolved.

Incorrect. This answer doesn't justify the need to check in with the donors, as the stimulus states the director in this specific case should do.