Q4

[cyruswhittaker]

For this question I'm uncertain about choice B. It seems rather strong. I initially chose A because it seems supported by the passage. After all, in the last sentence, it does say "...except for the passage.." line 57, which indicates to me that the author believes there is a limited time when injunctions are beneficial.

For choice B, the only real support that I could find for "no reliable way," which is very strong, is in lines 4-5: "Two basic principles in such cases appear irreconciable." So the author says they can't be accomplished together, but then goes onto say that courts have neverthless tried.

Maybe you could help me understand why B is better than A?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Answer choice (B) can be found in lines 4-5, where it says that "two basic principles in such cases appear irreconcilable."

Answer choice (A) is actually the opposite of what the author advocates. The author says in lines 55-56 "it is therefore unlikely that an injunction against disclosure of trade secrets to future employers actually prevents any transfer of information." This sounds like the author has a very skeptical view that these injunctions do any good.

Answer choice (A) definitely sounds as if the author thinks these injunctions are effective. This is simply not the author's view.

Does that help clear this one up?

[cyruswhittaker]

Yes, it does, thanks. I was getting confused by the last part of the sentence in lines 55-56 when it said "except for..", so I was relating that to choice A when it stated "..only when.."

[mrudula_2005]

Yes, it does, thanks. I was getting confused by the last part of the sentence in lines 55-56 when it said "except for..", so I was relating that to choice A when it stated "..only when.."

Remember though, that "only when" = "only if" and that it therefore signals a necessary condition. "except for" is not a formal logic term and doesn't signal anything apart from what it means: an exception. So the phrase in line 57 "except for" certainly doesn't signal a necessary condition as "only when" in answer choice (A) does. Correct me if I'm wrong here, someone!

More to the point though, (A) is simply outside the scope of the passage - the author never discusses a necessary condition for imposing injunctions (notice the passage is not at all concerned with making any kind of recommendation, so just based on that observation, (A)'s 'should' is unwarranted - the author stops short at just criticizing the efficacy of injunctions when it comes to non-concrete transmissions of secrets), he just discusses how they are generally ineffective with a few exceptions when it comes to concrete secrets.

Also, even if it was okay for you to equate "only when" with "except for" (which of course it is not okay to do), (A) would still be off because of its second clause "...there is strong reason to believe that an employee will reveal proprietary information..." - nowhere in the passage does the author even hint at the idea of former employers or courts basing their actions on mere inclinations of how the former employee will act in the future (for ex, what accounts for 'strong reason'? and even with 'strong reason', how is that sufficient evidence upon which to act? none of these concerns are addressed and there is no evidence that these injunctions are meant to act preemptively). If anything, we could infer that the author would advise against doing so because it's likely that the author will believe once again that the former employer will face problems in terms of securing proper evidence, etc.

Also, I can see how (B) would sound extreme at first but it isn't when you consider that it is qualified with the term "apparently." Also, in addition to the support for (B) found in lines 4-9, more support can be found in lines 14-20.

hope this helps some more and good luck!

[john]

Here's my two cents!

4. (B)
Question Type: Inference (4-5, 19-20)
In looking for an answer choice most supported by the passage, the main idea proves a good guide. Choice (B) harmonizes with the general theme that injunctions do not solve the problem of balancing the interests of employees and employers. It may seem as though this choice goes beyond what the passage can support, in its reference to "no reliable way" of protecting both interests. But the first paragraph does support this conclusion: we learn that these two principles "appear irreconcilable," and then that a prominent way of reconciling them does not actually work.

(A) contradicts the passage, which does not indicate that injunctions are ever an effective way of preventing disclosure of confidential information.
(C) is not supported by the passage; though the author suggests that the conflict between the rights of employers and those of employees is hard to resolve, there’s no indication that it should be resolved by restricting the rights of employees.
(D) contradicts the passage: since injunctions are not effective, nothing increases the need for them.
(E) is not supported by the passage, which does not discuss hidden motives for companies to seek injunctions.

[coco.wu1993]

Still have problem with B.

Line 4-9 says the two principles appear irreconcilable. This is different from saying that they are irreconcilable.

Line 15-20 only state injunction is not a viable method, way too weak to support B.

I guess it depends on whether we see "apparently" as "seemingly" or as "obviously". I thought it means the latter and got this one wrong.

[ohthatpatrick]

You’re definitely right to have lingering qualms with (B). It’s by no means a provable answer. But is there another answer choice you think has MORE support than (B)?

The phrasing of the question is just “which answer choice has the most support”, not “which answer can be proven from the passage”?

Naturally, when “most support” language is used in LR Inference questions and in most RC, our correct answer still feels 99% proven from the language in the passage.

But beware: on modern RC sections, you see a handful of correct answer choices like (B). They really do go beyond our textual support — on an older test, some of the language here may have qualified as a “deal breaker” because it’s stronger or different than its closest cousin in the passage.

But you have to plug your nose and pick it anyway. I hate this new trend. I liked the older RC, in which if you had time and enthusiasm to research textual support, you could be pretty darn certain your correct answer was provable from the passage.

But we need to pick the BEST answer, not the perfect one. So sometimes you have to live with “sigh - it’s got the MOST support”.

(A) no support for the author giving a rule for when injunctions should be used
(B) some support (4-9), (15-20)
(C) no support for the author suggesting people should not be allowed to work for a new company
(D) no support for the author suggesting we need more injunctions
(E) no support for the discussion of former companies using injunctions to PUNISH

Some beats none.

[StratosM31]

Actually answer (A) is pretty insane, if we think about it: it basically says that injunctions by courts should never be imposed except for cases where a company believes an employer will reveal proprietary information.

Means, a court injunction for blackmailing, sexual harrassment between individuals etc. would be inappropriate?!

[AlisaS425]

(A) no support for the author giving a rule for when injunctions should be used

Wondering if the author does suggest "when injunctions should be used".

I thought lines 55-59 provide some support that injunctions MAY be used when it's about "concrete documents" leakage.

I notice the author's negative attitude towards using injunctions to protect trade secrets, but it seems to me that the author's thinking this way because "it's hard to prove (that the former employees leaked trade secrets)", not because injunction itself is of no use.

Would appreciate if there's any feedback!