LSAT 77, Logical Reasoning II, Q24, LSATHacks

LR Question 24 Explanation, by LSATHacks

QUESTION TEXT: Mallotech portrays itself to the public as a socially…

QUESTION TYPE: Sufficient Assumption

CONCLUSION: Mallotech is wrong to say that it’s socially responsible (unless the critics are mistaken).

REASONING: Critics say that many of Mallotech’s factory workers work in unsanitary conditions.

ANALYSIS: On sufficient assumption questions, you need to connect the evidence to the conclusion.

Evidence: Conditions are unsanitary
Conclusion: Mallotech not socially responsible.

How to fill gap: If conditions are unsanitary ➞ then company not socially responsible

If might feel like this is already true. But that’s probably because you have an outside assumption that unsanitary conditions are morally wrong. Making that assumption explicit lets us complete the argument.

You don’t need to worry about whether the critics are right, since the argument already accounts for that possibility.

___________

1. We don’t know if Mallotech has lied. They might agree conditions are unsanitary, but argue that that’s irrelevant to being socially responsible.
2. Same as A. We don’t know if Mallotech has concealed anything! Maybe they admit their factories are unsanitary.
3. This just shows the critics are correct. But that doesn’t matter. The conclusion was “if the critics are correct, Mallotech is wrong about being socially responsible”. This answer doesn’t help show a lack of social responsibility.
4. CORRECT. This fills the gap from the analysis.
   Socially responsible ➞ unsanitary
   unsanitary ➞ socially responsible
5. This is irrelevant. We don’t know whether or not Mallotech is well-managed. And the contrapositive of this statement is this: socially responsible ➞ well managed. So there’s no way for this statement to conclude, as a necessary condition, “socially responsible”.