Q1 - Director of Ace Manufacturing Company

[noah]

We need to find the flaw in this argument. The conclusion is that implementing a certain recommendation would cause the company to violate its policy of not exploiting workers. Why? Because the person putting forth the recommendation states that it'll help the company "by fully exploiting" the available resources.

As (A) notes, the word "exploiting" is being used in two different ways here (she's using it to mean "use" and the director is using it to mean "take advantage of").

(B) is out of scope - nobody is defending any action.

(C) is tempting in that it's confusing and it refers to a word's use. There's no example given in this argument, and the problem with a term's definition is not that an odd use of the word is employed, it's that two uses of the word are used.

(D) is not true! The conclusion doesn't show up as a premise.

(E) is perhaps tempting since it refers to a problem with terminology, however we have no idea which use of "exploit" is more offensive, and even if we did, whether one is more offensive than another is irrelevant.

[roflcoptersoisoi]

Takes for granted that the word exploit has the same meaning regardless of context.
The term 'exploit' as used by the management consultant means to the resources at our disposable in the most effective way possible.
The term 'exploit' as used by the director is the same way Karl Marx defined it when he described it in his exploitation theory wherein the bourgeoisie take advantage of and exploit the labor of the proletariat.


(A) Bingo
(B) Descriptively inaccurate, which action is the director defending?
(C) Descriptively inaccurate, he doesn't define any term.
(D) The argument doesn't use any circular reasoning.
(E) He doesn't use any euphemisms for any term in his argument.