Passage Summary: A company is to blame for workers getting sick from a chemical because they should have tested it beforehand, even if they didn't know it was bad at the time.

Conclusion: The manufacturer of substance T is not excused from responsibility for worker illnesses despite their initial ignorance of the danger.

Reasoning: If the company had conducted safety investigations before exposing workers to the substance, they would have discovered the risk and prevented the illnesses.

Analysis: This argument moves from a factual premise about prevention to a moral conclusion about responsibility. To bridge this gap, we need a principle that establishes a duty to investigate. The manufacturer might argue they didn't know it was dangerous, but the author counters that they *should* have known. Look for a principle that states an entity is liable for harm if that harm could have been avoided through reasonable prior research or testing. It essentially punishes 'willful ignorance' or negligence in safety protocols.