It is currently 20 Oct 2017, 06:09

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# When the Pinecrest Animal Shelter, a charitable

Author Message
Senior Manager
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 281

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 0

When the Pinecrest Animal Shelter, a charitable [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Jun 2006, 20:38
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

100% (01:33) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 1 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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. Since more funds were ultimately donated than were used for the repairs the directors plan to donate the surplus funds to other animal shelters. But before doing so, the directors should obtain permission from those who made the donations.
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?
(A) The directors of charitable organizations cannot allocate publicly solicited funds to any purposes for which the directors had not specifically earmarked the funds in advance.
(B) People who solicit charitable donations from the public for a specific cause should spend the funds only on that cause or, if that becomes impossible, should dispose of the funds according to the express wishes of the donors.
(C) Directors of charitable organizations who solicit money from the public must return all the money it received from an appeal if more money is received than can practicably be used for the purposes specified in the appeal.
(D) Donors of money to charitable organizations cannot delegate to the directors of those organizations the responsibility of allocating the funds received to various purposes consonant with the purposes of the organization as the directors of the organization see fit.
(E) People who contribute money to charitable organizations should be considered to be placing their trust in the directors of those organizations to use the money wisely according to whatever circumstance might arise.

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 02 Jun 2006
Posts: 1257

Kudos [?]: 106 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

08 Jun 2006, 20:49
B?

Kudos [?]: 106 [0], given: 0

SVP
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 1728

Kudos [?]: 98 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

08 Jun 2006, 22:33
Clear winner E.

A - Places restrictions on the directors such that the extra funds cannot be used for any other purposes.

B - Again places restrictions, the directors have to get a consesus of all the donors before they spend that money.

C - The director cannot use the extra money to help othe rorganizations hence it doesnot support the position stated.

D - directors don't have enought powers.

Kudos [?]: 98 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 03 May 2006
Posts: 51

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

09 Jun 2006, 03:17
E it is ,
as only E places least restriction on allocation of funds

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 16 Aug 2005
Posts: 937

Kudos [?]: 28 [0], given: 0

Location: France

### Show Tags

09 Jun 2006, 03:44
E makes most sense here as jaynayak mentions above. However, I am not very sure. The stem says "the directors should obtain permission from those who made the donations" where E seems to suggest that is not necessary
_________________

I believe its yogurt!

Kudos [?]: 28 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 02 Jun 2006
Posts: 1257

Kudos [?]: 106 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

09 Jun 2006, 04:19
Doesn't E implicit not agree with the argument given, as in the directors seeking the approval for repairs of animal shelters other than their own?

OA?

Kudos [?]: 106 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 571

Kudos [?]: 24 [0], given: 0

Location: Munich,Germany

### Show Tags

09 Jun 2006, 19:13
E for least restriction

Kudos [?]: 24 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 22 May 2006
Posts: 176

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

10 Jun 2006, 12:10
E for me too.

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 281

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

10 Jun 2006, 14:22
old_dream_1976 wrote:
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. Since more funds were ultimately donated than were used for the repairs the directors plan to donate the surplus funds to other animal shelters. But before doing so, the directors should obtain permission from those who made the donations.
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?
(A) The directors of charitable organizations cannot allocate publicly solicited funds to any purposes for which the directors had not specifically earmarked the funds in advance.
(B) People who solicit charitable donations from the public for a specific cause should spend the funds only on that cause or, if that becomes impossible, should dispose of the funds according to the express wishes of the donors.
(C) Directors of charitable organizations who solicit money from the public must return all the money it received from an appeal if more money is received than can practicably be used for the purposes specified in the appeal.
(D) Donors of money to charitable organizations cannot delegate to the directors of those organizations the responsibility of allocating the funds received to various purposes consonant with the purposes of the organization as the directors of the organization see fit.
(E) People who contribute money to charitable organizations should be considered to be placing their trust in the directors of those organizations to use the money wisely according to whatever circumstance might arise.

This one is ugly. isn't it ?

The OA is B. I do not have the OE. The only reason I can come up with is that should places no restriction.

in E should works the other way meaning some donors may not place their trust

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 0

Re: CR-animal shelter   [#permalink] 10 Jun 2006, 14:22
Display posts from previous: Sort by