PrepTest 145, Section 4, Question 24
Mallotech portrays itself to the public as a(32 more words not shown)
The argument's conclusion follows logically(8 more words not shown)
- AA socially responsible(13 more words not shown)
- BNo company that(8 more words not shown)
- CMany employees in(6 more words not shown)
- DA socially responsible(9 more words not shown)
- EEvery company that(6 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Do unsanitary working conditions make a company socially irresponsible? That is the connection we need. The critics might be wrong about the conditions, but the argument already allows for that: its conclusion applies unless the critics are mistaken. We don't have to prove the accusation true to follow a claim about what would happen if it were true.
What we’re looking for
Even accepting the accusation for that purpose, we still need to connect workplace sanitation with social responsibility. The company says it is socially responsible. If a socially responsible company cannot have employees working in unsanitary conditions, then accurate criticism of those conditions would conflict with its self-description. That's the rule I'd predict for the sufficient-assumption question.
Working the answers
- A
We aren't told that Mallotech has lied about whether its employees work in unsanitary conditions. It portrays itself as socially responsible, but the argument needs to establish why the conditions would make that portrayal inaccurate. A rule about lying over sanitation doesn't supply the needed connection between having unsanitary conditions and being socially irresponsible.
- B
Concealing information is not established. A company could openly describe its working conditions and still call itself socially responsible. We need a rule showing why those conditions conflict with that description, not a rule that requires an additional fact about concealment.
- C
This establishes the critics' factual accusation but leaves the central connection open. Even if employees work in unsanitary conditions, why does that mean the company isn't socially responsible? The conclusion is conditional on the critics being right, so merely confirming that condition doesn't provide the missing rule.
- DCorrect
Social responsibility and employees working in unsanitary conditions cannot coexist under this rule. Therefore, if the critics are right about the conditions, Mallotech cannot be socially responsible. Its portrayal of itself as socially responsible must then be inaccurate. That proves the conclusion while preserving its allowance for the critics' being mistaken.
- E
We aren't told that Mallotech is well managed, and the proposed link runs from good management to social responsibility. It doesn't establish that unsanitary working conditions rule out social responsibility. E gives us neither the relevant starting fact nor the needed exclusion.
More Sufficient Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Sufficient Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.