Q2

[john]

2. (A)
Question Type: Inference (41-51)
Though the question is phrased in an unusual manner, it essentially asks you with which of the answer choices the author of the passage is most likely to agree. We’ve already seen that the main point of the passage is that injunctions against disclosing trade secrets are likely to be ineffective. Choice (A) is in closest agreement with this point; specifically, the third paragraph indicates the reasons that legal remedies are unlikely to protect employers. The idea that employers should strive to retain employees may seem to stretch beyond the passage’s actual content, but it does agree with it, which is more than can be said for the other answers.

(B) directly contradicts the main point of the passage, which is that injunctions are not effective.
(C) is stated too strongly; the passage does make the case that employers have difficulty proving that employees are illegally disclosing trade secrets, but does not go so far as to say that they must be afforded redress in such situations.
(D) contradicts the passage, which uses such physical items as examples of transfers that can be legally prevented.
(E) contradicts the passage, which tells us in the first paragraph that injunctions can have a psychological effect on employees.

[uhdang]

Although the author argues that injunction is ineffective, I thought saying so is one thing, but claiming, "it is best rather giving employees strong incentives to stay in their current jobs" is another thing. So, I thought A) is definitely way too strong to be an answer. Like john said above, it is definitely way too stretching. Should I just content with this answer choice being stretching?

Also, I thought E does have the support from the passage because it says, "(injunction help generate) psychological barriers to full ... they are hardly effective in upholding... " (Line 13-20).

Please help me clarify this question.

[ohthatpatrick]

I think you're misreading what 13-20 is saying.

As an employee, you're supposed to have the right to quit your job and get a job elsewhere. (free employment decisions)

Injunctions are hardly effective in upholding that right.

Rephrase: injunctions mess up an employee's ability to make free employment decisions.

Why? Because the injunction generates suspicions and psychological barriers to fully/freely using one's ability in the new job situation.

So the extreme claim in (E) that they have NO effect is contradicted ... they have SUCH an effect that they actually compromise the employee's ability to make free employment decisions (i.e. they would make an employee feel so constrained / suspected that the employee would likely perform poorly or decide that the new job was not sustainable).

For (A), yes, you have to live with a big stretch. Even though John said we could kinda read this question stem as "What would the author be most likely to agree to", the question stem DOES make it clear that our answer choice will NOT have already appeared in the text we read. So we're looking for a new idea that seems compatible to / sympathetic with the ideas already expressed.

[jasonleb1]

Can someone give a more in depth answer as to why C is wrong? I was between A and C and even while reviewing it I couldn't really figure out why one was better than the other. I couldn't eliminate A because it seemed reasonable but so did C and C seemed to have specific evidence between lines 42 and 53 so I went with that.

As the original poster explains, I can't see how the passage not saying that means of redress need be made available (even though it seems to me that it does in line 53) would exclude C since the question stem indicates we are clearly looking for something not stated in the passage.

[Mab6q]

Can someone give a more in depth answer as to why C is wrong? I was between A and C and even while reviewing it I couldn't really figure out why one was better than the other. I couldn't eliminate A because it seemed reasonable but so did C and C seemed to have specific evidence between lines 42 and 53 so I went with that.

As the original poster explains, I can't see how the passage not saying that means of redress need be made available (even though it seems to me that it does in line 53) would exclude C since the question stem indicates we are clearly looking for something not stated in the passage.

Notice that the question asks that we consider the passage's tone. C simply goes beyond the author's tone in this passage, so it is unlikely that the author would be making this point somewhere else. We get no indication that the he believes the companies must be given means of redress to address this problem. Furthermore, C is also complicated by the inclusion of "suspect, but cannot prove." There is no support for that in the passage.

[ohthatpatrick]

Great response. It's a weird question stem. You don't usually see "tone" in an RC question stem, but it may be that LSAT felt the need to package that in to make (C) easier to justify as an over-the-top answer.

I thought (C) sounded off because the author seemed to feel that in many cases it's pretty impossible to know / prove where an employee's knowledge base switches from personally owned/developed skills into proprietary skills/ideas gained by working for his/her previous employer.

The author makes it seem like employees don't even necessarily know when they might be acting on "trade secrets", tidbits of insight gleaned from their previous job. And a company often can't know/prove that a former employee gained a skill ON the job vs. prior to or separate from their job.

Since it's SUCH a fuzzy gray area, it's unlikely the author would give employers this clear leverage, letting them go after former employees when they just SUSPECT, and can't prove anything.

[AlisaS425]

Got it wrong under timed condition. Trapped by (C), but during review I think I see why (C) is wrong.

In the last paragraph, we're told that the employers could only seek injunction against former employees only if they leaked "concrete documents". So the author seems to believe that the employers, in order to seek compensation / relief, must have some "proof / evidence"; otherwise, their claim wouldn't hold.

If so, then it's unlikely the author would agree with (C ) that the employers could seek compensation even if he has no proof.

Also, it seems like we can locate the correct answer by eliminating answer choices with "strong wording":
(A) no strong wording. "might be best served" seems good.
(B) "most effective"; also contradict the author's main point.
(C) as explained above.
(D) no strong wording, but it seems to contradict the last paragraph, where the author suggests that injunctions may be useful under circumstances that the former employees leaked "concrete" materials. Thus, (D)'s wrong.
(E) "no effect"; contradict lines 14-18.

Please correct me if I'm wrong!