Passage Summary: A shelter raised money for specific repairs but ended up with extra cash; the author argues they shouldn't give that extra money away without asking the people who donated it first.

Conclusion: The shelter directors must obtain permission from donors before redirecting surplus funds to other organizations.

Reasoning: The money was specifically earmarked for repairs, and since there is a surplus, the directors want to give it to other shelters.

Analysis: This Principle Justify question asks for a rule that validates the author's moral or procedural claim while remaining as narrow as possible. We are looking for a principle that links the act of 'earmarking' funds for a specific purpose to the 'requirement of consent' if those funds are used for something else. It is a classic social dynamic: if I give you money for a specific sandwich and you buy a salad instead, I might want a say in that. Look for an answer that mandates donor approval specifically when the original purpose of a donation has been fulfilled or changed.