PrepTest 126, Section 2, Question 4
Often when a highly skilled and experienced employee(453 more words not shown)
The passage provides the most(8 more words not shown)
- AInjunctions should be(19 more words not shown)
- BThere is apparently(23 more words not shown)
- CEmployees should not(22 more words not shown)
- DThe multiplicity of(13 more words not shown)
- ESome companies seek(13 more words not shown)
Reading the passage
This broad support question could draw on the main point or a particular detail. We know the two rights are in tension and the courts' attempted compromise has practical weaknesses. I'll check the claims against that account; we don't need to guess a new policy the writer would prefer.
Working the answers
- A
No rule limits injunctions to cases where disclosure seems especially likely. This adds a recommendation about when courts should act.
- BCorrect
This is broader than the criticism of injunctions alone, which gives me pause. But the opening describes the two rights as apparently irreconcilable, and the next paragraphs explain why: protected knowledge becomes inseparable from expertise, and its later use can be hard to identify or distinguish from independent work. The attempted compromise doesn't reliably resolve that conflict. “Apparently” fits the problem as presented; it doesn't claim to prove that no possible future method could ever work.
- C
The writer doesn't recommend barring employees from competitors. The difficulty of protecting secrets doesn't by itself establish that employees should lose the freedom the courts are trying to preserve.
- D
The many routes of information transfer explain why injunctions may fail. They aren't presented as a reason that injunctions are increasingly needed.
- E
We aren't told that companies seek these orders to punish departing employees. That motive is new.
More Detail questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Detail questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.