Over the years, the Red Cross has been guided in its use of donations by honoring donor intent. This policy helped the organization deal with a major ethical challenge after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The Red Cross received more than $1 billion in donations and initially diverted some money to ancillary operations, such as creating a strategic blood reserve. After donors objected, however, the organization reversed its decision and – honoring donor intent – used the contributions to directly benefit people affected by the tragedy. Should the American Red Cross have reversed its initial decision to divert some of the money donated for September 11 relief efforts to pressing but ancillary operations? Support your chosen position.

Yes

Explanation:

The Red Cross society is an organization that have collected money from their donors. Ethically, it is a right thing to honour the intent of donors. Donors make donations with an opinion that the money is utilized for the specific purpose and carries lot of emotions behind the donation. So, for any reason, if the purpose is changed, it may not be accepted by the donors. Of course, it may be more worthwhile to divert the money for other reasons or purposes like creating a strategic blood reserve (for ancillary operation) and the decision may help many people in future. But the society primary responsibility is to make use of the donors' money as per the intensions of the donors only. the society may use the money for other purposes after convincing the donors. So, the Red Cross initially have faced the opposition from the donors and reversed its decision and after that, it has taken a decision that is accepted by the donors, its completely a justifiable one.  

yes the correct answer was

b.the increased supply will create a surplus.