Even if this isn’t the most effective way for a charity to give donors influence, it still would give them some influence and could therefore help build an emotional connection. The argument doesn’t need voting to be the only way to increase contribution.

The argument is making a claim about what will happen in the future and doesn’t need a statement about what has happened for most charities in the past. Even if charities in the past increased donation money without building an emotional connection, building a connection could still be a good way for charities now to receive increased donations.

Too strong. The argument makes a claim about most charities, and doesn’t need an assumption about what happens to every single charity that gives donors the right to vote.

Too strong. The argument does not need to assume that donors will not give any money at all without influence, only that donors will give more money if they do have influence.

This provides the missing link between emotional connection and donation amounts. If this were false, then there would be no reason to think that establishing an emotional connection through voting would change anything about the amount raised through donations.