Reading comp PrepTest 102 · Section 1 · Question 4

Topic: Legal

Paragraph 1

• Paragraph note
  • Problem (legal rules governing email privacy of email are unsettled)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Most office workers' view:
    • Emails they send to each other are as private as a phone call or meeting is wrong (first and second sentences)
  • Comparison, according to the author:
    • While it is illegal for an employer to monitor phone calls (even on a company-owned phone) or meetings, there are no clear rules for email (third sentence)
  • Author's view:
    • Privacy of email is a very complicated legal issue (last sentence)
  • Author's attitude: "assumption is wrong" (second sentence); "no clear rules" (third sentence); "one of the more complicated legal issues" (last sentence)

Paragraph 2

• Paragraph note
  • Debate on email privacy (opinions vary based on circumstances) and government employee example (deleting emails)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • View of many people on email privacy:
    • The degree of privacy should depend on who owns the email system and who is reading the emails (first sentence)
  • Example of opinions on both sides of the email privacy debate: government office
    • Some say government employees should be able to delete emails that are records of government business because paper copies will be kept (second and third sentences)
    • Others say they shouldn't be able to delete emails because paper versions don't preserve address information, and the public should have the right to review all records created by government business (fourth and fifth sentences)

Paragraph 3

• Paragraph note
  • Another example of debate on email privacy (automotive employees fired for insulting manager over email)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Example of opinions on both sides of the email privacy debate: two employees of an automotive company fired for insulting manager over email and then filing a grievance when threatened
    • Employees claimed that their privacy had been violated (fourth sentence)
    • The court dismissed their unlawful termination case dismissed because the company owned the computer system and could read anything created on it (second through fifth sentences)

Paragraph 4

• Paragraph note
  • Author's imperfect solution (no privacy expectation unless employees encrypt, which is inconvenient)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Comparison, according to the author:
    • While some laws prohibit outside interception of email by a third party without a search warrant, these laws don't cover interoffice or inter-company interception of email (first and second sentences)
  • Author's view:
    • In some places, Courts have ruled that interoffice communications are private only if employees have a "reasonable expectation" of privacy when they send the messages, but no computer system has any guarantee of privacy (third and fourth sentences)
    • One solution is to encrypt emails, but this would defeat email's primary advantage over other forms of communication, namely, convenience (last sentence)
  • Author's attitude: "the fact is no absolute guarantee of privacy exists" (fourth sentence); "The only solution may be" (fifth sentence); "unfortunately" (fifth sentence); "likely to undermine the principal virtue of electronic mail" (fifth sentence

Main Point: Uncertainty surrounds the laws governing email privacy in the workplace, leaving employees with an inconvenient solution.

Paragraph 1, Sentence 4 (P1, S4) - Uncertainty of legal issues surrounding email privacy

P2, S2 - Example of government office

P3, S3 - Example of private company

P4, S4 - No guarantee of privacy in any computer system

P4, S5 - Possible solution and problem with it

Problem/Solution: This passage is rather hard to classify because it doesn't fit neatly into any of the Meta-Structure categories. However, it seems closest to a Problem/Solution passage* because the author begins by describing the unsettled nature of privacy laws governing email in the workplace. The author then gives some examples to illustrate the debates over email privacy and the court cases that have further clouded the issue before advancing a possible solution to the problem — encryption. The author then partially rejects this solution because it would negate email's main advantage as a means of interoffice communication: convenience.

In a Problem/Solution passage, the main point is generally the solution the author endorses/proffers. If the author does not endorse or proffer a solution, then the author’s opinion on the solutions. In this passage, the author partially rejects the only solution they proffer: encryption, since it would undermine email's principal virtue of convenience. For that reason, we summarized the main point as, "Uncertainty surrounds the laws governing email privacy in the workplace, leaving employees with an inconvenient solution."

*It is possible to classify this passage as a Describing a Debate passage. However, that's not a perfect fit either, since the author only explicitly frames the question of email privacy as a debate in the third paragraph. We could stretch a bit and call this an Innovative Subject passage because the author introduces email as a very new and disruptive force in workplace privacy laws. However, that classification would go against the author's typically laudatory attitude toward their subjects in that passage. Here, the author doesn't admire email as a disruptive and innovative force in the workplace; they view it more as a problem.

Example: The primary minor Meta-Structure in this passage is the example. The author gives two extended examples to illustrate the challenges posed by workplace email privacy debates. These examples are a hypothetical government office and an actual automotive company. Expect one or both to figure into a question or two.

It’s OK if you don’t think this passage is a conventional “Problem/Solution passage. In fact, recognizing that this passage doesn’t fit neatly into that framework will only help us with the questions. We can eliminate any question that suggests the author feels confident in a solution to the legal issues surrounding email privacy in the workplace.