Q24 - Mallotech portrays itself to the public

[mshinners]

Question Type:
Sufficient Assumption

Stimulus Breakdown:
Rephrased conclusion: If the critics are right, Mallotech is not socially responsible.
Premise: Critics say Mallotech factories are unsanitary.

Answer Anticipation:
This conclusion is predicated on the critics being right. Without that, there'd be an assumption that the critics are right, but, with this qualified conclusion, we have to look elsewhere for the gap.

After rephrasing this argument, it's a lot easier (easier, not easy!) to spot the gap. The premise is about unsanitary conditions; the conclusion is about being socially irresponsible. The correct answer will need to connect those two ideas - A company that forces its workers to work in unsanitary conditions is not socially responsible.

Correct answer:
(D)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) Out of scope. There's no information supporting that Mallotech lied about the conditions.

(B) Out of scope. There's no support for the contention that Mallotech concealed information.

(C) Interesting trap answer. This answer is essentially stating that the critics are right. First, the conclusion doesn't rely on them being right - it just states what's true IF they're right. Second, this still doesn't connect unsanitary conditions to social responsibility.

(D) Bingo. This answer gives us the contrapositive of our prediction, but it connects the premise with the conclusion.

(E) Out of scope. There's no information about how well-managed Mallotech is.

Takeaway/Pattern:
Rephrase arguments when possible to make them easier to digest.

#officialexplanation