Too restrictive. It would prevent the directors of Pinecrest from using the surplus money for other shelters, because the directors did not specifically identify that money as going toward other shelters in advance.

(B) supports the reasoning by requiring the directors of Pinecrest to get permission from the donors to use the surplus money for other shelters. It’s not too restrictive compared to other answers, in that it doesn’t require the directors to return the money and it doesn’t stop the directors from using the money.

Too restrictive, because it would require the directors of Pinecrest to return all of the surplus money.

Too restrictive, because (D) would have the donors making the direct decisions about how to use the money. If the donors can’t delegate these decisions, then the donors can’t give permission to the directors to use the money for particular purposes. The donors themselves must make the decisions. This prevents the directors from deciding to give the money to other shelters.

(E) doesn’t justify requiring directors to obtain permission from the people who made the donations. According to (E), once the donations were made, the directors had the authority to use the money for whatever they thought wise.