#2 - Must Be True, Expansion

[lsacgals101]

Hi there!

In lines 55-59, the author says that injunctions are ineffective "except" for concrete things, but answer choice D says that it is ineffective even for those concrete things. While this might be an effective rhetorical strategy, it would mean that the author is contradicting themselves, and LSAC assumes people do not do that.

Answer choice A is correct because, according to the author, injunctions are the only recourse a corporation has if an employee begins working for a competitor (line 10-15); however, these injunctions are effective only at protecting concrete pieces of corporate property—nothing else. Therefore, the best option a company has is to keep its employees because once they leave the company cannot keep control of their trade secrets.

Cheers,
Who Ray

Could you explain why answer C is wrong? And also describe what your general approach to this question would be? A and C seem like they could both be correct, and I think having a means to attacking this kind of question would help me be able to eliminate one/decide on the correct answer in the future. Thanks so much

[cleocleozuo]

yes, I have a similar question about the general approach to these tone questions. It seems that we should eliminate answer choices that are not mentioned in the passage (eg:C), as well as answers that are inconsistent with the passage (degree-wise or content-wise). Am I on the right track?

[KelseyWoods]

Hi lsacgals101 and cleocleozuo!

For an Expansion question such as this, it's important to be clear on what the overall main point of the passage is as well as the author's viewpoint.

The main point, as stated in the first question in this passage, is that "Court injunctions prohibiting employees from disclosing former employers’ trade secrets to new employers probably do not achieve all of their intended objectives." Throughout the passage, the author argues that court injunctions are ineffective. The author discusses why it is basically impossible for employees to not use any of the knowledge they learned at their previous place of employment. Because it's impossible for employees to totally forget protected information they learned, court injunctions are not effective because they are barring something that cannot be barred. Therefore, the author wouldn't agree with answer choice (C) that "means of redress must be made available to companies that suspect, but cannot prove, that former employees are revealing protected information to competitors." The author wouldn't say that companies should have some way of remedying potential leakage of protected information that occurs without proof (such as "the passage of documents and other concrete embodiments of the secrets" that the author mentions at the end of the passage). The author would say that it's impossible to prevent some unintentional leakage or even to prove that the "leakage" is actually of protected trade secrets rather than just "technological skills developed independently by the employee or already possessed by the new employer."

Instead, the author would be likely to agree with answer choice (A): "Given the law as it stands, corporations concerned about preserving trade secrets might be best served by giving their employees strong incentives to stay in their current jobs." This choice is in keeping with the author's viewpoint that once an employee moves to a new company, it's impossible for them to not use or potentially leak any of the information they learned at their previous employer. Since it is impossible for employees to not "leak" information once they leave, then the only way to stop information leakage is to prevent the employees from leaving to begin with.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

[Henry Z]

I still feel (A) is too strong and specific. The passage only talks about the disadvantages of the injunction to protect trade secrets, but never talks about the advantages of other means, not to mention what is the BEST among the alternatives.

I think (C) is supported by lines 46-54: if it's a "major stumbling block" to protect trade secrets when the former employers suspect but cannot prove, I think it's safe to say that the author agrees there should be "means of redress" available to these companies?

[Robert Carroll]

Henry Z,

I don't think answer choice (A) can be rejected because of its strength - it says "might"! Answer choice (A)'s degree of certainty is as low as it gets - bare possibility. So on that basis, there's no objection to answer choice (A). Since injunctions don't work, it seems reasonably to say you "might" want to try something else, like what answer choice (A) says.

I have a serious issue with answer choice (C). Granted that the author thinks that current means to prevent sharing of trade secrets aren't particularly effective, I don't see the author as think that's a crisis or something that really needs to be redressed. Further, the fact that answer choice (C) wants a remedy for suspicion of sharing even in the absence of proof means that the author would have to want companies to have a power to "redress" situations where they might not have been any actual wrongdoing - only a suspicion of such. Nothing in the passage supports the idea that the author would want this.

Robert Carroll