PrepTest 145

Incorrect. There's no indication that Mallotech has lied about the conditions their employees are working in, so this answer doesn't justify that Mallotech is not socially responsible.

Incorrect. There's no indication in the stimulus that Mallotech has concealed information from the public, so this answer doesn't guarantee they're not socially responsible.

Incorrect. This answer addresses the charge of the Critics, providing information that their criticism is true. However, since the conclusion is conditioned on them being correct, it doesn't need to be established that they are, so this answer doesn't add anything to the logic of the argument.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Sufficient Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Mallotech Ð We're socially responsible!
Critics Ð Then why are your employees working in unsanitary conditions?
Conclusion Ð Critics right → Mallotech is lying to the public

Answer Anticipation:
The conclusion here is conditioned on the Critics being correct, and it states, essentially, that Mallotech is lying—that they're not socially responsible.

Taking what the Critics say as true (since the conclusion rests on that condition), why does the author of this argument believe Mallotech is lying? Because they have employees that are working in unsanitary conditions. Does that directly speak to whether or not they're a socially responsible company? Not necessarily—that concept isn't clearly defined by the argument, and it's not a phrase that has a common enough meaning to know that it includes all employees working in sanitary conditions.

So the argument is assuming that a company that has employees working in unsanitary conditions can't be socially responsible.

Answer Explanation:
If this answer is true, and if the Critics are correct, then Mallotech isn't a socially responsible company, and thus presenting itself as such would be inaccurate, justifying the conclusion.

Key Takeaway:
As much as you might agree with the assumption here, the argument itself never establishes what counts as socially irresponsible. Whenever there's a term that could have various definitions is used as a criteria for reaching a conclusion, and the scenario it's applied to doesn't use the same phrasing, instead relying on a specific type of that criteria, the argument is making an assumption about that action fitting into the criteria.

Incorrect. Management is out of scope of the argument.