LSAT Question Explanation
PT 102, Section 3, Question 1
Identify the FlawArgument structure
Implementing the consultant's recommendation would be a violation of company policy.
The recommendation will fully exploit the company's resources, and the company has a rule not to exploit workers.
Explanation
The consultant says the word "exploit" but it's in a positive sense: she wants people to do what they like and what they're good at. The recommendation would allow the company to better harness the ability of ("exploit") it's employees for increased production.
The director misunderstands the meaning of exploit as used by the consultant. The director thinks the consultant is using "exploit" in a negative sense, saying the company should abuse their workers, which presumably is what the policy is in place to protect against.
Answer choices
Perfect. The director thought that the consultant was recommending the company abuse their employees, leading her to make an unsupported conclusion.
The director never tries to defend an action. If anything she condemns exploitation.
The director never defines any terms. Also, there's no indication that exploitation (in the negative sense as the director uses it) is defined by something that doesn't happen often.
This answer choice indicates circular reasoning, which isn't happening here. The conclusion doesn't restate an earlier premise.
The director didn't apply a different term than she should have, she confused different meanings of the same term.