PrepTest 126 - Section 2 - Passage 1 - Question 4

Hide analysis

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.

██ ██ █████████ ██████████ ██ ██████ ███████ ██ ████ ████ ██ █████ █████████ ████ ███ ███ ████████ ████ ██████ █████████ ███ ██████████ ████ ██ ████████ ███ ███ ███████████ ███████ ████ ███ ████ █████ ████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ████████ ████ ██ █████ █████ ████████████ █████████ █████████████ ██████ ███ ████ ███████████ ████ ██ ███ ██████ █████████ ███ ████████████ ██ ███████ ██ █████████ █████████ ██████ ██████████ ██████████ ███████ ███ █████████ █████████ ██ ███ ████████ █████ █████████ ███████████ █████████ ██ ███ ████████ ██ ██████████ ████ ███ █████████ █████████

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.

████ ██ ████████ █████ █ ████████ ████ █ ███████████ ███ █████ ███████ ████ ████ ████ ████████ ██ ████ ████████ ███ ████████ ██████████ ███████ ███ ████████████ ████ ██ ████ █████ ███████████ ████ ██ █████████ ███ ████ ███ ███ ████ ██████ ██ ████████ ██████████ ██████████████ ███ █████████████████████ ████████ ██ █████ █████ █████████ ██ ███ ███ █████ ██ ██ ███ ████ █████ █████████████ ███ █████ ████ ██ █ █████ ████ ██████████████ ██ ███ ████ ██ ██ █████████ █████ ██ ████ ██ ██ ██ ██ ██████ ███

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

The passage provides the most ███████ ███ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ███████████

Injunctions should be ███████ ██ ███ ██████ ████ ████ █████ ██ ██████ ██████ ██ ███████ ████ ██ ████████ ████ ██████ ███████████ ████████████

Not supported, because the author never discusses when injunctions should or should not be imposed. She discusses the effects of injunctions, but not whether they should be imposed and on what conditions they should be imposed.

12%

There is apparently ██ ████████ ███ ██ ███████ ████ ███ ██████ ██ █████████ ██ ███████ █████ ███████ ███ ███ ██████ ██ █████████ ██ ████ ███ ███████████

This is the best answer. We know that if an employee moves to another company, the trade secrets can manifest themselves in subconscious decisions. So, if employees are allowed to move to another company, the former company’s trade secrets won’t be reliably protected from disclosure. On the other hand, if the employee is not allowed to change companies, then their right to seek new employment is not protected.

80%

Employees should not ██ ███████ ██ ████ ████ ████ █████ ██████ ██████████ ███████████ ████ █████ ███ ███ █████ ██████████ █████ ███████ ██ █████ ██████ ██████████

Not supported, because the author never indicates that she favors the right of an employer to protect trade secrets over the right of an employee to seek employment elsewhere.

The multiplicity of █████ ███ ████████████ ███████████ ██ ███ █████████ ████ █████████ ███ ████ ███ ████████████

Not supported, because the author never suggests that injunctions are necessary or important. Her point is that injunctions are unlikely to be effective in protecting trade secrets. It’s not clear that she likes injunctions or wants them to be granted more often.

Some companies seek ███████████ ██ █ █████ ██ █████████ █████████ ███ ████ ████ ████ █████ ████████████

Not supported. We have no evidence that some companies want to punish employees who take jobs with their competitors.

PrepTest 126 - Section 2 - Passage 1 - Question 4

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.

Confirm action