PrepTest 126, Section 2, Question 6
Often when a highly skilled and experienced employee(453 more words not shown)
In the passage, the author(7 more words not shown)
- AInjunctions against the(14 more words not shown)
- BMeasures against the(19 more words not shown)
- CEmployees who switch(14 more words not shown)
- DEmployers are not(16 more words not shown)
- EWhat may seem(12 more words not shown)
Reading the passage
We need a claim the writer makes. On a question this specific, remembering the general criticism isn't enough. Let's find the actual support, especially if an answer takes one of those concerns and changes what it says about employees.
Working the answers
- A
Initially tempting: we did hear that injunctions can interfere with employees' rights. But the stated problem is suspicion and psychological barriers to using abilities in the new workplace. That doesn't establish a reduced chance of being hired by the competitor. We shouldn't replace a problem using one's skills after moving with a claim about getting the job.
- B
The difficulty of preventing subtle disclosure doesn't show that measures against it are unnecessary. Ineffectiveness and lack of need are different claims.
- C
The text describes the possibility and manner of leakage, not the proportion of job changers who violate the law. Saying leakage is more likely to be subconscious than deliberate doesn't mean most employees commit a violation.
- D
Nothing says new employers face no restrictions on their methods of obtaining information.
- ECorrect
The final paragraph expressly allows technical expertise the employee acquired on their own (paragraph 3) as an alternative explanation for suspicious activities. Something that looks like knowledge taken from the former company could instead be independently developed knowledge. This has specific textual support that A lacks.
More Detail questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Detail questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.