PrepTest 126, Section 2, Question 5
Often when a highly skilled and experienced employee(453 more words not shown)
With which one of the(24 more words not shown)
- AWhile the transfer(25 more words not shown)
- BSuch materials are(13 more words not shown)
- CInjunctions against the(20 more words not shown)
- DLarge-scale transfer of(9 more words not shown)
- ESuch concrete materials(15 more words not shown)
Reading the passage
The ending allows that injunctions may prevent documents and other concrete materials from changing hands. But that doesn't solve the broader problem of knowledge influencing an employee's work. I'd expect an answer reflecting that limited success without making the materials unimportant.
Working the answers
- A
This is tempting because subtle contributions can indeed transmit protected knowledge. The added comparison is the problem: we aren't told they can do more harm in the long run than transferring concrete materials. Difficulty detecting a transfer doesn't tell us how damaging it is.
- B
We likewise get no comparison of how much information the materials contain and how much an employee remembers.
- C
The writer doesn't advise courts to specify particular materials or rank them by potential damage. That's a proposal for drafting orders, not an inference from the stated distinction.
- D
This contradicts the limited exception in the last sentence. Concrete transfers are the kind injunctions may actually prevent.
- ECorrect
The discussion explains why subtle leakage is hard to detect and prove, then contrasts it with documents and other concrete embodiments. That supports a difference in how readily these transfers can be identified and controlled. It doesn't require the unsupported comparison of harm in A or information content in B.
More Author's Opinion questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Author's Opinion questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.