Can anyone help me work through number 20?

I think the sheer amount of language in here is what's throwing me off. But summarized as generally as possible, I think the stimulus is saying.

"Klemke thinks that the complaints are unfounded bc the complainers are biased. However, being biased would NOT prevent you from being badly treated. Therefore, the complaints are justified (not unfounded)"

So is the argument flawed because it asserts that Klemke's argument is inadequate even though it is adequate?

I'm just lost :??

**Admin Notes: