Director of Ace Manufacturing Company: Our management consultant proposes that we reassign staff so that all employees are doing both what they like to do and what they do well.
Conclusion (Therefore)
Implementing the consultant's recommendation would cause us to violate our own policy.
rephrase: Reassigning staff so that all employees are doing both what they like and what they do well would cause us to exploit our workers.
Evidence
According to the consultant, following her advice will "increase productivity by fully exploiting our available resources".
Evaluate
Given that ... the consultant says that her plan will allow us to fully exploit our resources, and that ... the policy says "we will not exploit our workers",
How could we ague that ... the consultant's plan will not violate the policy?
Well, if the plan "will exploit" and the policy says to "not exploit", then we seem stuck. We would have to recognize that these are two different senses of the verb "to exploit".
When we encourage a bigger basketball player to "exert more force / use your height advantage" over their smaller opponent, we're saying "Exploit your advantage!" This just means "utilize your advantage".
This is a positive or at least neutral sense of "exploiting".
But when we talk about "exploitation", that's a negative. That refers to an unfair sense of manipulation caused by some power imbalance. When school systems underpay teachers and don't provide them with enough resources, they know that teachers care so much for their students that they'll work extra hours at home and buy supplies for students out of their own paycheck. That's the negative sense of exploitation.
The company's policy is pledging that the company won't make unfair use of its employees. It will avoid that negative sense of exploitation.
The consultant is talking about fully utilizing one's resources. That's a good thing.
Goal
This is one of the ten famous flaws, Equivocation. This flaw rarely occurs, but it shows up a lot in incorrect answers. But in this case, it's actually happening. The argument is using the same term/concept (exploit) two times as those they are copies of each other, but in reality they're being used with two very different definitions.