Passage Summary: A columnist argues that when bosses give company money to charity, they are essentially stealing because that money belongs to the shareholders, not the bosses themselves.

Conclusion: The practice of corporate managers donating a portion of company profits to charity is morally or legally unjustified.

Reasoning: Profits are the property of the owners rather than the managers, so giving them away is equivalent to theft, much like Robin Hood's actions.

Analysis: The argument relies heavily on an analogy to Robin Hood to characterize corporate philanthropy as a form of theft. To weaken this, we need to find a reason why the analogy doesn't hold—perhaps the 'theft' isn't actually unauthorized. Look for an answer that suggests owners actually approve of these donations or that the donations serve the owners' interests by improving the company's image. One might wonder if the columnist thinks every business lunch is also a heist since the manager is 'spending' the owner's money.