Thanks for the question! So let’s take a look at the stimulus. We’re told that Mallotech portrays itself as socially responsible, but critics say employees work in unsanitary conditions. Unless the critics are mistaken, Mallotech isn't accurately portraying itself to the public.
So now we need to assume something to make the conclusion follow logically; in other words, this is a strengthen with sufficient premise question. So the premise is about how the employees are working in unsanitary conditions, and the conclusion is basically that Mallotech isn’t socially responsible (and thus not accurately portraying itself to the public). We need something to link these two ideas, and that’s what (D) gives us. It tells us that a socially responsible company wouldn’t have employees working in unsanitary conditions; if that’s true, then we know that Mallotech isn’t actually socially responsible, and thus hasn’t been accurately portraying itself.
Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any other questions that you might have.