PT102.S1.P1.Q5 > Analytics

Hide analysis

Most office workers assume that the messages they send to each other via electronic mail are as private as a telephone call or a face-to-face meeting. ████ ██████████ ██ ██████ ████████ ██ ██ ███████ ██ ████ █████ ███ ██ ████████ ██ █████████ ██ ███████ █████████████ ██ █████████ ████████████ ██ ████ ████ █████ ██ █ █████████████ █████████████████ ███ ██ █████ █████ █████████ ██████████ █████ ██ █████ ███ ████████ ██ ███ ███████ ██████████ ████ █████████████ ██████ ██ ███ ███████ ██ ███ ██ ███ ████ ███████████ █████ ██████ ██ ███ ██████████ ████

Intro to Issue · No clear rules on email privacy

Office workers wrongly assume that their emails are private.

Public Sector (Government) · Are government emails private?

If yes, then they can destroy them and deny public access.

Proposition · Yes, because there are paper versions that the public can access

Opposition · No, because the paper versions are incomplete; emails contain more information

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

Private Sector (Business) · Are private sector employees's emails private?

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

Example · Not private

Two employees talk shit over email about their boss. Boss finds out. Fires them. Judge rules in favor of company because the computers were company property hence boss had right to read anything on it.

Law · No privacy for "inside" interception

Law sometimes protects against third party eavesdropping but not when the third party is an "insider." So the police (outsider) can't eavesdrop on you but your boss (insider) can.

Exception · Reasonable expectation of privacy

If you have a reasonable expectation of privacy, then privacy could trump. But there is no absolute guarantee.

Solution · Encrypt messages

If you're an employee and want privacy, you may just have to encrypt your emails. But that's a huge pain in the butt.

Passage Style

Critique or debate

Problem-analysis

It can be inferred from ███ ███████ ████ ███ ██████ █████ ████ ██████ ████ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ████████ █████ ██ ██████████ ██████ ████ █████ ██████ ███ ██████ ██████████ ████ ████████ ████ █ ██████ ██████████

Question Type

Author’s perspective

Implied

The author states at the end of the passage that encryption by scrambling one’s own messages is a potential method for increasing the privacy of one’s emails. However, it’s likely to make email less convenient.

A system that allows encoding and decoding of encrypted emails with a single keystroke would seem to be a very convenient way to help protect one’s emails.

It would be ██ ████████████ ██████ ██ █ █████████ ███████ ██ ███████ ██████████ ████ ███████ ██ ███ ██████████

The author never suggests that she values a company’s ability to monitor emails. So there’s no basis to think the author would agree with (A) regarding the single-keystroke system.

It would significantly ██████ ███ ██████████ ██ ██████████ ██ █████████ ███ ███████ ██ ██████████ █████

This best captures what the author is likely to agree with. She said only one thing about encryption — scrambling one’s own messages with an encryption code is likely to undermine convenience. This is evidence that the author thinks a method of encryption that doesn’t involve having to scramble one’s own code is probably more convenient (and hence, reduce the difficulty of protecting one’s emails).

62%

It would create ███████████ █████ █████████████ ███ █████████ ██████ ██ ███████ █████████ ████ █████████ █████ ███████ ██ ████████████

The author never suggests that encryption might create legal problems for companies that are trying to prevent employees from revealing secrets. There’s simply no connection presented in the passage between encryption and attempts to prevent employees from revealing trade secrets.

It would guarantee ████ █ ███████ █████ ██ ████████ ████████ ███ ██ █████ ███ ██ █████ ███ ████ ████████ ██ ██████████ ████ █ ███████

It’s not clear why a single-keystroke method of encryption would guarantee “only a minimal level of employee privacy.” Even if it doesn’t guarantee absolute privacy, it might still guarantee a substantial amount of privacy. In any case, the author doesn’t express an opinion about whether implementing encryption is “worth” the cost. We have no reason to think the author wouldn’t favor installation of the single-keystroke system.

16%

It would require █ ██████ ██ ███ █████ ██████████ ██ ███████████ ███████████ ██ ████████ ██ ██ ███████ ██ █████████████████ ██████████

The author doesn’t connect encryption with the legal definition of a “reasonable expectation of privacy.” We have no reason to think the single-keystroke method would affect the legal definition.

14%

Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.

It takes about five minutes.

Take the free diagnostic

More free LSAT prep: Sample LSAT questions Full-length diagnostic & practice test All free LSAT resources

PrepTest 102 - Section 1 - Passage 1 - Question 5

Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action

PrepTest 102 - Section 1 - Passage 1 - Question 5

Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Want to know why the right answer is right?