PT126.S2.P1.Q2 > Analytics

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

Given the passage's content and █████ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ██████████ █████ ████ ██████ ██ █████ █████████ ██ █ ████ ████ █████ ████ ███████ ██ ██ ████████

Question Type

Implied

It’s difficult to predict an answer just based on the question stem. But we can think about the content and tone of the passage. The passage is about court injunctions against disclosure of information as a way to protect trade secrets. The author’s tone is skeptical that injunctions can protect trade secrets.

Given the law ██ ██ ███████ ████████████ █████████ █████ ██████████ █████ ███████ █████ ██ ████ ██████ ██ ██████ █████ █████████ ██████ ██████████ ██ ████ ██ █████ ███████ █████

Supported, because the author thinks an injunction against disclosure of trade secrets is unlikely to be effective at preventing transfer of trade secrets except for those in a physical form. So employers that want to prevent disclosure of trade secrets “might” be better off by trying to keep their employees from moving to another company than from trying to use courts to prevent transfer of secrets. It’s important that (A) uses “might,” because this has a very low standard of proof. The author doesn’t need to show that employers “will” be better off or are “probably” better off. Just that there’s a possibility they’ll be better off by trying to keep their employees from leaving.

74%

While difficult to ███████ ███ ██████████ ███████████ ███ ████████ ███ ████ █████████ █████ ██ ███████ ███ ███████████ ████████ ██ █████ ███████ █████ ██████████████ ██████████ ███ ██████ ██ ██████████

This goes against the general direction of the author’s main point, which is that injunctions are unlikely to be an effective means of protecting trade secrets. In addition, the author never compares the effectiveness of injunctions with other methods.

Means of redress ████ ██ ████ █████████ ██ █████████ ████ ████████ ███ ██████ ██████ ████ ██████ █████████ ███ █████████ █████████ ███████████ ██ ████████████

There’s no evidence the author thinks we need to develop ways to redress companies that don’t have proof their former employees are revealing trade secrets. The author never suggests that the law needs to change or that courts should do anything differently.

Even concrete materials ████ ██ ████████ █████ ███ ██ ████ ██ ████ ███ ███████ ████ ██ ████ ██ █ █████ ██ ████ ███ ██████ ██ ███ ██ ███████ ███ ██████ ██ ███████████ ███████ ████████ ██████

There’s no evidence the author thinks efforts to protect physical objects with data that can be copied are wasted. The author never discusses copying data and efforts to prevent such copying. In addition, the author thinks injunctions might be effective to prevent transfer of secrets in the form of physical documents and other concrete items.

The psychological barriers ████ ██ ██████████ ███ █████ ██ ██ ████████ ██ █ ███ █████████ ███ ██████████ ██ ██████ ████ ████ ████ ██ ██████ ██ ███ █████████

There’s no evidence the author thinks the psychological barriers created by an injunction have “no” effect on employees. The author does think that the subconscious ways in which trade secrets might be used by an employee will be difficult to detect and prevent, but this doesn’t imply a belief that the psychological barriers have absolutely zero effect.

10%

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 126 - Section 2 - Passage 1 - Question 2

Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action

PrepTest 126 - Section 2 - Passage 1 - Question 2

Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Want to know why the right answer is right?