#2 - Must Be True, Expansion

[brcibake]

What is wrong with answer choice E? I see how C Is a good fit but also E makes sense because the 3rd paragraph discusses how trade secrets can manifest themselves subconsciously and inconspicuously ( line 37).
Thank you!

[Stephanie Turaj]

Hi brcibake!

Thanks for your question! I think you accidentally posted in the wrong thread before . I have moved this over to the Oct. 2008 #2, which begins, "Given the passage’s content and tone, which one of the following statements...."

The correct answer for this question is A, not C, so let us know if you meant to ask about another question!

Thanks!

[adashworth]

Hello, I don't get why A is right. The passage seemed more concerned with employees and their rights, especially to move to a new job, than with corporations. I put D because it seemed right in line with lines 55-59 in that theoretically those physical items would be the easiest to detect, but ultimately it would be fruitless, just like everything else. Any explanation is appreciated, thank you.

[Who Ray]

Hi there!

In lines 55-59, the author says that injunctions are ineffective "except" for concrete things, but answer choice D says that it is ineffective even for those concrete things. While this might be an effective rhetorical strategy, it would mean that the author is contradicting themselves, and LSAC assumes people do not do that.

Answer choice A is correct because, according to the author, injunctions are the only recourse a corporation has if an employee begins working for a competitor (line 10-15); however, these injunctions are effective only at protecting concrete pieces of corporate property—nothing else. Therefore, the best option a company has is to keep its employees because once they leave the company cannot keep control of their trade secrets.

Cheers,
Who Ray

[jwheeler]

What was wrong with answer choice E here? I had it narrowed down to A and E, but A felt wrong because it departed from the rest of the passage by recommending an alternate route.

For me, E made sense because the article talked about how the things you learn at a company just become part of you and your experiences. You don't consciously separate them when you've moved on to a new job, so there's no effect.

[Brook Miscoski]

Jwheeler, the passage does suggest that psychological barriers are ineffective at preserving trade secrets. However, that is very different from saying that the psychological barriers have zero effect. The passage does suggest a loss of freedom in making employment decisions. The passage also does not argue that the psychological barriers are subtle. Instead, the passage argues that despite best efforts the trade secrets have become part of the employee's way of working. The passage doesn't say anything at all about the vast array of effects that could emanate from psychological barriers.

Also, just sayin', but the author doesn't know jack about what a trade secret is or how companies and courts address the topic...at least not as edited by the LSAT geniuses. But of course we must put all that aside. Terrible passage.

[lsacgals101]

Hi there!

In lines 55-59, the author says that injunctions are ineffective "except" for concrete things, but answer choice D says that it is ineffective even for those concrete things. While this might be an effective rhetorical strategy, it would mean that the author is contradicting themselves, and LSAC assumes people do not do that.

Answer choice A is correct because, according to the author, injunctions are the only recourse a corporation has if an employee begins working for a competitor (line 10-15); however, these injunctions are effective only at protecting concrete pieces of corporate property—nothing else. Therefore, the best option a company has is to keep its employees because once they leave the company cannot keep control of their trade secrets.

Cheers,
Who Ray

Could you explain why answer C is wrong? And also describe what your general approach to this question would be? A and C seem like they could both be correct, and I think having a means to attacking this kind of question would help me be able to eliminate one/decide on the correct answer in the future. Thanks so much

[cleocleozuo]

yes, I have a similar question about the general approach to these tone questions. It seems that we should eliminate answer choices that are not mentioned in the passage (eg:C), as well as answers that are inconsistent with the passage (degree-wise or content-wise). Am I on the right track?

[KelseyWoods]

Hi lsacgals101 and cleocleozuo!

For an Expansion question such as this, it's important to be clear on what the overall main point of the passage is as well as the author's viewpoint.

The main point, as stated in the first question in this passage, is that "Court injunctions prohibiting employees from disclosing former employers’ trade secrets to new employers probably do not achieve all of their intended objectives." Throughout the passage, the author argues that court injunctions are ineffective. The author discusses why it is basically impossible for employees to not use any of the knowledge they learned at their previous place of employment. Because it's impossible for employees to totally forget protected information they learned, court injunctions are not effective because they are barring something that cannot be barred. Therefore, the author wouldn't agree with answer choice (C) that "means of redress must be made available to companies that suspect, but cannot prove, that former employees are revealing protected information to competitors." The author wouldn't say that companies should have some way of remedying potential leakage of protected information that occurs without proof (such as "the passage of documents and other concrete embodiments of the secrets" that the author mentions at the end of the passage). The author would say that it's impossible to prevent some unintentional leakage or even to prove that the "leakage" is actually of protected trade secrets rather than just "technological skills developed independently by the employee or already possessed by the new employer."

Instead, the author would be likely to agree with answer choice (A): "Given the law as it stands, corporations concerned about preserving trade secrets might be best served by giving their employees strong incentives to stay in their current jobs." This choice is in keeping with the author's viewpoint that once an employee moves to a new company, it's impossible for them to not use or potentially leak any of the information they learned at their previous employer. Since it is impossible for employees to not "leak" information once they leave, then the only way to stop information leakage is to prevent the employees from leaving to begin with.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey