Q4 - Columnist: Donating items to charity

[debbie.d.park]

I don't understand the gist of this question. Would you please explain? Thanks!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT2]

Here the author is adding together two pieces of evidence to arrive at a conclusion. We can think of the argument core as follows:

Donating to charity may be sign of generosity + Most donors make donations only intermittently

THEREFORE

Any generosity donating demonstrates is rarely permanent.

What's the flaw here? In reaching his conclusion, the author is assuming that the generosity is not permanent because the people only perform generous actions once in a while. That doesn't make sense! Imagine if, in order to be a generous person, you had to do generous things all the time! Or, the equivalent--in order to be a nice person, you had to do things that could be viewed as "nice" every second of the day.

The author assumes that the person can't be generous when not doing something generous. The author assumes, therefore, that the person can only be generous when doing something generous. That is what (C) says in a formalized way.

[debbie.d.park]

OK, now I understand. Thanks for your time!!

[rfojas11]

Could someone explain why the other choices are incorrect?

I tried to do so below, and would be interested in finding out if I did so correctly.

(a) the argument does not discuss who is the most virtuous
(b) out of scope because there is no such attack
(d) unsupported by the premises
(e) unsupported because the argument does not discuss "most people" but "most donors"

Thank you!