The fact that part of the profits are returned to company owners doesn’t weaken the conclusion that donating some of the profits to charity is not justified. (A) also doesn’t provide a relevant difference between the managers’ donations and Robin Hood’s stealing.

This points out a relevant difference between managers’ donations and Robin Hood’s theft. To draw an analogy between the two, the columnist must assume the owners don’t consent to the donations, just as the rich don’t consent to Robin Hood’s theft. (B) attacks that assumption.

The author assumes that managers are stealing when they donate company profits that they don’t own. Whether managers also donate from their own income is irrelevant, since it wouldn’t amount to stealing and doesn’t highlight a relevant difference between managers and Robin Hood.

The argument is about what company managers do in regard to charitable donations, rather than about what the charities themselves should or shouldn’t do. Thus, (D) doesn’t weaken the columnist’s conclusion or provide a relevant difference between the managers and Robin Hood.

Like (D), this misses the point of the columnist’s argument and fails to provide a relevant difference between managers and Robin Hood. The actions of charities are irrelevant to the conclusion that company managers’ donations amount to stealing.