Self-study
P1
Often when a highly skilled and experienced employee leaves one company to work for another, there is the potential for a transfer of sensitive information between competitors. ███ █████ ██████████ ██ ████ █████ ██████ ███████████████ ███ █████ ██ ███ ███████ ██ ███ ████████████ ██████████████ ███████████ ████ ███ █████ █████████████ ███ █████ ██ ███████████ ██ ████ ███████ ██████████ ███ ██ ████ ████ ███ ██ █████ ██████████ ███
Problem ·
When employees change companies, they might take trade secrets with them
One principle - companies have right to their own intellectual property. Another principle - people can seek other employment and freely use their own abilities. These appear irreconcilable.
Courts' solution ·
Allow employees to change companies, but order employees not to disclose former employer's secrets
One critique ·
Court's solution doesn't protect employees' rights
Author's critique ·
Court's solution doesn't protect trade secrets
The transition "but it is also doubtful..." tells us that the author will focus on this critique. She won't focus on the other one.
P2
██ ██ █████████ ██████████ ██ ██████ ███████ ██ ████ ████ ██ █████ █████████ ████ ███ ███ ████████ ████ ██████ █████████ ███ ██████████ ████ ██ ████████ ███ ███ ███████████ ███████ ████ ███ ████ █████ ████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ████████ ████ ██ █████ █████ ████████████ █████████ █████████████ ██████ ███ ████ ███████████ ████ ██ ███ ██████ █████████ ███ ████████████ ██ ███████ ██ █████████ █████████ ██████ ██████████ ██████████ ███████ ███ █████████ █████████ ██ ███ ████████ █████ █████████ ███████████ █████████ ██ ███ ████████ ██ ██████████ ████ ███ █████████ █████████
Support for Author's Critique ·
Employees can't separate expertise they gained from prior employment
However, companies might claim that part of that expertise involves intellectual property.
P3
████ ██ ████████ █████ █ ████████ ████ █ ███████████ ███ █████ ███████ ████ ████ ████ ████████ ██ ████ ████████ ███ ████████ ██████████ ███████ ███ ████████████ ████ ██ ████ █████ ███████████ ████ ██ █████████ ███ ████ ███ ███ ████ ██████ ██ ████████ ██████████ ██████████████ ███ █████████████████████ ████████ ██ █████ █████ █████████ ██ ███ ███ █████ ██ ██ ███ ████ █████ █████████████ ███ █████ ████ ██ █ █████ ████ ██████████████ ██ ███ ████ ██ ██ █████████ █████ ██ ████ ██ ██ ██ ██ ██████ ███
Support for Author's Critique ·
Court orders don't stop subsconscious use of trade secrets
Concession ·
Court orders, in theory, prohibit subconcious use of trade secrets ("leakage")
Author's response to concession ·
Hard to enforce prohibition against leakage
There won't be much evidence of subconscious use of secrets (because it's subconscious). And, it's hard to distinguish legitimate skill developed independently by employees from skill acquired through secrets.
Author's main point ·
Court orders prohibiting disclosure of secrets are unlikely to be effective
Passage Style
Critique or debate
Problem-analysis
3.
The author's primary purpose in ███ ███████ ██ ██
a
suggest that injunctions ███████ ███ ██████████ ██ █████ ███████ ███ ████ ██████ ████████ ███ █████████ ██ ███ ██████████ ███ ████ ███ ██████ ██ ████ ███ ███████ ██████ ██ ███████████ ███████████
This is the best answer, since it captures the author’s purpose in criticizing court injunctions as a solution to the disclosure of trade secrets by former employees.
b
suggest that the ███████████ █████████ ██ ██████████ ███ █████ ████████ ████████████ ██ ███████ ██ ███████ ████ ███████████ ██ ██████ ████ ██ ██████████ ████████████ ████████
The author never comments on the importance or lack of importance of information in documents and other physical objects. Since (B) doesn’t occur, it can’t be the primary purpose.
c
argue that new ███████ ████ ██ █████ ██ ███████ ███ ████████ ███████ ███████ █████████ ███ ██████████ ██████
The author never argues for new methods to be found. She merely criticizes injunctions as a way to protect court secrets.
d
support the position ████ ███ ███████ ██ ██████████ █████ ███████ ██ ██ ██████ ██████ ██ ██ ███ ██ ██████████ ██████ ██ ███████████
The author doesn’t show any opinion about the concept of protecting trade secrets and whether it’s still viable. Although she criticizes injunctions as a method to protect disclosure of trade secrets, she never comments on the broader topic of whether protecting trade secrets is viable at all in today’s age.
e
argue that injunctions ███ ███ █████████ ███ ███ ██████████ ██ █████ ███████
The author argues that injunctions aren’t effective in protecting trade secrets. Whether they are necessary is a separate issue from whether they are effective. Injunctions might not be effective, but it’s possible that without them, trade secrets have no chance of being protected.