Typo? EK VR 101: psg 2, test 3, #7 (relevant paragraphs included)

[Gauss44]

7. A "letter of gift" (line 32) would most likely be used when:

A. documentation of a donation was required.
B. a donor wished to express a personal preference.
C. the guidance of a trustee was requested.
D. the founder wished to give some guidance.

(Line 32 is underlined. The first 4 paragraphs of passage 2 are below.)

Relevant Paragraph:
Where founders wish to give guidance about their recommended aims without the risks of limited the foundation's usefulness or causing it to fail, they can attach a "letter of gift." This letter - an expression of the founder's personal preferences - is not legally binding but can be used by trustees and courts to reinterpret the founder's probable intent under changing circumstances.

I will add the correct answer later so you can make your prediction without bias. Hopefully someone will participate.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Jepstein30]

7. A "letter of gift" (line 32) would most likely be used when:

A. documentation of a donation was required.
B. a donor wished to express a personal preference.
C. the guidance of a trustee was requested.
D. the founder wished to give some guidance.

(Line 32 is underlined. The first 4 paragraphs of passage 2 are below.)


Passage 2:

The most obvious way for founders of charitable foundations to instruct and control the trustees who administer the foundation's daily activities is for the founder to specify his intended aims for the foundation through it's charter documents. These intentions can be enumerated affirmatively (by outlining trustees' explicit duties), or negatively (by listing those acts that the founder prohibits them from doing).

The more explicit the founder's instructions, the less room there is for trustee opportunism. At the same time, explicit aims and prohibitions decrease the trustee' flexibility , and an overly rigid set of instructions may cause the foundation to become obsolete or be dissolved, particularly in light of changing circumstances. Fore example, foundation that is only empowered to grant scholarships to apprentice buggy-whip makers, the social impact of falls. Finally, when there are no more such apprentices, the founder's heirs would be able to petition the courts to dissolve the foundation and assign it's assets to them.

Under the legal doctrine of cy pres ("close enough"), when hanging circumstances render a founder's stated purpose impossible, illegal, or highly impractical, courts may allow trustees to apply the foundation's endowment toward related charitable purposes, so long as they find that the founder's intent was to fund similar charitable projects, rather than the original project exclusively.

Relevant Paragraph:
Where founders wish to give guidance about their recommended aims without the risks of limited the foundation's usefulness or causing it to fail, they can attach a "letter of gift." This letter - an expression of the founder's personal preferences - is not legally binding but can be used by trustees and courts to reinterpret the founder's probable intent under changing circumstances.

(last 3 paragraphs excluded/probably unnecessary)

I will add the correct answer later so you can make your prediction without bias. Hopefully someone will participate.

*The above material is less than 10% of Examkrackers Verbal 101, 2nd edition (doesn't violate copyright).

I just took this test the other day and chose D, which I think is the correct answer.

The Letter of Gift is 'supposed' to be used for founders to "give guidance."
A- no mention of a donation anywhere there.. nor documentation
B- letter of gift is made by the FOUNDER not a donor
C- No mention of a trustee in that paragraph

I'm guessing you chose B instead but the donor vs. founder distinction makes that wrong.

 

[Gauss44]

Thanks for replying and explaining your logic. I didn't choose B as my wrong answer. Anyone else?

 

[Gauss44]

Why not C?

I chose C - The very next sentence says, "can be used by trustees and courts to reinterpret the founder's probable intent under changing circumstances." Isn't this sort of like a will or trust in the sense that it's primary purpose is to state someone's wishes who is no longer around? These questions drive me crazy.

Correct answer was D.

 

[sp808]

Reread the answer choice. "The guidance of the trustee" implies that the trustee is the one writing the letter and giving the guidance, not the founder. I also picked D when I took this test.

 

[Gauss44]

Reread the answer choice. "The guidance of the trustee" implies that the trustee is the one writing the letter and giving the guidance, not the founder. I also picked D when I took this test.

The trustees (and courts) will make their own decisions taking the "letter of gift" written by the founder into consideration, right?

 

[Jepstein30]

The trustees (and courts) will make their own decisions taking the "letter of gift" written by the founder into consideration, right?

Read the answer choice.

"The guidance of a trustee is requested."

Where did we mention anything about trustee's guidance? And that someone requested such guidance?

It's most definitely D and correct as is.

 

[Gauss44]

Read the answer choice.

"The guidance of a trustee is requested."

Where did we mention anything about trustee's guidance? And that someone requested such guidance?

It's most definitely D and correct as is.

The organization looks to the trustees for guidance, and the trustees look to the founder(s) and founder(s) documents like a "letter of gift" for guidance. The "letter of gift" is particularly useful when the founder is no longer available, like dead, right?

 

[Jepstein30]

The organization looks to the trustees for guidance, and the trustees look to the founder(s) and founder(s) documents like a "letter of gift" for guidance. The "letter of gift" is particularly useful when the founder is no longer available, like dead, right?

The founder is the one ultimately giving the guidance, dead or not.. just as you said there.

Who is requesting such guidance? You can claim it is the organization but the organization requesting guidance from the trustees is never mentioned in the passage..

 

[Gauss44]

Founders create "letters of gift." Trustees use "letters of gift." Founders don't use "letters of gift." Right?

Change of topics.

Now I'm really trying to make a case for answer D, but it's grammatically awkward:
Ex. Founders are using "letters of gift" to give guidance. Like saying the boss is using instructions to tell you what to do. The author is using his book to tell a story. "Using" as in using a mode of communication. Using email, using the phone, using a letter to say blah blah blah.

I hope there's a better explanation.

 

[Jepstein30]

Founders create "letters of gift." Trustees use "letters of gift." Founders don't use "letters of gift."

That's what the passage says?

Just thought of a grammatically awkward way this almost make sense:
Ex. Founders are using "letters of gift" to give guidance. Like saying I'm using my will or trust to advise you. Or the boss is using instructions he emailed you to tell you what to do. "Using" as in a mode of communication. Using email, using the phone, using a letter to say blah blah blah.

I hope that's not the correct explanation.

You're overthinking this extremely...

You set up a foundation. If you wish to give guidance about what you want the foundation to be used for without risking it failing due to limited opportunities, you use a letter of gift to express your personal preferences.

You're gravitating to the incorrect answer because they included the word "use" in the question when really that has absolutely no connection. Also not sure why you think that's grammatically awkward when its a perfectly normal and socially accepted use of the word "use." Heck, that is THE definition of use.

End of the day, the answer is right there in the same sentence that the letter of gift is introduced: Where founders wish to give guidance

It's also NOT asking who would use a letter of gift.. just asking when it would be used.

 

[Gauss44]

The other thing is if the "letter of intent" is being used to, "reinterpret the founder's probable intent," doesn't that suggest that it can be used in the founder's absence.

The "when" in the question, or when it's used, seems to suggest that it's not used by the founders.

Or is it just me?

In response to the previous post, I will keep in mind that use of "used." If that's really what the author meant, I might as well remember he speaks like that because it might come up again. Otherwise, I would be lost.

 

[Gauss44]

I don't think what's been discussed is the reason that answer D is correct though.

It's like saying the father gave his son a bike to ride. The son rode the bike. When was the bike used?
C. When the son rode it.
D. When the father gave it.

Compare that to Exam Kracker's question and the relevant paragraph quoted in the original post. There is no way that I can justify answer D without ignoring the part about the trustee in the paragraph referenced.

 

[Jepstein30]

Where founders wish to give guidance about their recommended aims without the risks of limited the foundation's usefulness or causing it to fail, they can attach a "letter of gift." This letter - an expression of the founder's personal preferences - is not legally binding but can be used by trustees and courts to reinterpret the founder's probable intent under changing circumstances.

I don't think what's been discussed is the reason that answer D is correct though.

It's like saying the father gave his son a bike to ride. The son rode the bike. When was the bike used?
C. When the son rode it.
D. When the father gave it.

Compare that to Exam Kracker's question and the relevant paragraph quoted in the original post. There is no way that I can justify answer D without ignoring the part about the trustee in the paragraph referenced.

Yet you can ignore the bolded part above (i.e. the answer).

I'm not sure why you keep assuming simple English words as having only a single, very limited use, either.

When = in what situation

When is a letter of gift used? = In what situation is a letter of gift used?

The answer is in the bolded part in the first post I quoted. I'm not going to bother checking back here because it's getting to the point I feel you are just trying to justify your answer being right without actually considering you may have just gotten it wrong.

Seriously.. if the question had an answer:
E) When the trustees want to reinterpret the founder's intent

THEN you have a legitimate complaint about this question. But no-where in the passage AT ALL did it ever bring up the idea of trustees giving guidance OR being requested to give such guidance.

 

[Gauss44]

Yet you can ignore the bolded part above (i.e. the answer).

I'm not sure why you keep assuming simple English words as having only a single, very limited use, either.

When = in what situation

When is a letter of gift used? = In what situation is a letter of gift used?

The answer is in the bolded part in the first post I quoted. I'm not going to bother checking back here because it's getting to the point I feel you are just trying to justify your answer being right without actually considering you may have just gotten it wrong.

Seriously.. if the question had an answer:
E) When the trustees want to reinterpret the founder's intent

THEN you have a legitimate complaint about this question. But no-where in the passage AT ALL did it ever bring up the idea of trustees giving guidance OR being requested to give such guidance.

When = in what situation, is helpful.

Part of the difficulty, I think, is that this discussion has been limited to 3 people (myself included) talking past each other and not making sense to one another. If you are frustrated, then don't respond any more or take a break. This is not being rude. Sometimes people don't understand what each other are saying. Let someone else jump in and hopefully they will.

In response to Jepstein's comments, I did read the passage, and do not assume all "English words as having only a single, very limited use" (maybe more common uses though).

Let's reset the tone and make some progress on this passage.

PS - It would be terrific if there were some good discussions somewhere of ANY of these passages, even if I were not a participant. Especially one where everyone just shares their reasons for and against answers and their passage maps, no responses or critiques, just all of it there for other people to read.

 

[sp808]

The bottom line is that guidance is not requested from the trustee, but from the founder. The answer choice C is absolutely incorrect as written.

Yes, we understand your argument concerning the wording of the question but that doesn't change the fact that there is no remote possibility that choice C has any truth to it. Although choice D would not be 100% satisfactory to you, it is the best answer of those four choices, and the fact that you have to invoke record-breaking levels of pedantry and semantics to say otherwise is evidence of that fact.

Correct answers in verbal are often ambiguous and but the point is that you have to select the best answer from the four choices, even if that answer is not great (although in this case, the question was extremely straightforward). The manner in which you're dissecting the question is going to lead to disastrous results on the verbal, if that is your normal thought process. Nobody cares how many ways you can misconstrue the question. There is only going to be one right answer on the real exam, and you have to learn how to pick which one that is. You're not going to find anyone else to discuss this with because there is nothing to discuss.

 

[Gauss44]

The bottom line is that guidance is not requested from the trustee, but from the founder. The answer choice C is absolutely incorrect as written.

Yes, we understand your argument concerning the wording of the question but that doesn't change the fact that there is no remote possibility that choice C has any truth to it. Although choice D would not be 100% satisfactory to you, it is the best answer of those four choices, and the fact that you have to invoke record-breaking levels of pedantry and semantics to say otherwise is evidence of that fact.

Correct answers in verbal are often ambiguous and but the point is that you have to select the best answer from the four choices, even if that answer is not great (although in this case, the question was extremely straightforward). The manner in which you're dissecting the question is going to lead to disastrous results on the verbal, if that is your normal thought process. Nobody cares how many ways you can misconstrue the question. There is only going to be one right answer on the real exam, and you have to learn how to pick which one that is. You're not going to find anyone else to discuss this with because there is nothing to discuss.

This is a very mean and unnecessary response. If an answer is obvious to you, then good for you. You don't have to put down those who don't share your intelligence. I was trying to explain myself as best I could. Hopefully you will more tolerant practicing as a doctor some day.

 

[sp808]

Sorry for the rude response. I wasn't implying that your unintelligent, just that you're over thinking the question too much. Either way, I think you should try to listen to what I wrote and realize that most verbal questions can't and shouldn't be broken down the way you are doing right now. I believe it'll help you a lot.