Columnist: The managers of some companies routinely donate a certain percentage of their companies' profits each year to charity. Although this practice may seem totally justified and even admirable, it is not. After all, corporate profits are not the property of the managers, but of the companies' owners. The legendary Robin Hood may have stolen from the rich to give to the poor, but he was nevertheless stealing. Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the analogy used in the argument? ['The profits that a company makes in a given year are, in part, returned to the owners of the company.', "Managers who routinely donate a certain percentage of corporate profits to charity do so with the owners' tacit consent.", 'Any charity that accepts corporate donations needs to be able to account for how that money is spent.', 'Company managers often donate part of their own income to charities or other philanthropic organizations.']