Reading comp PrepTest 102 · Section 1 · Question 6

Passage

Questions 1-7    Most office workers assume that the messages they send to each other via electronic mail are as Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage Summary

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.

Key Lines?

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

Meta-Structure?

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.

Last Thoughts?

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.

Question prompt

Given the information in Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: C

The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.

Question Type

Legal

Strategy Overview

Remind ourselves of the main point of the passage, then head to the answers, focusing on those that line up with the main point and then using our notes/the passage to eliminate the incorrect answer choices.

Answer Anticipation

For these Cannot Be True questions, the correct answer will either assert a claim contradicted by information in the passage. Here, we're asked about a hypothetical situation that is LEAST likely to occur. This doesn't give us much guidance to help us anticipate what the correct answer will say. As such, we’ll need to rely on our big-picture understanding of the passage to answer this question.We should start by reminding ourselves of the main point (either by reviewing what we said after reading the passage or by re-reading our answer to the main point question). From there, we can head to the answer choices. If something seems familiar, consistent with the main point, or reflected in our notes, the passage probably supplies enough information for us to conclude that it could be true. We can eliminate it without checking the passage. If something seems inconsistent with the main point or one of our notes, it’s probably the correct answer. We can use our notes/highlights/underlines to find the part of the passage that proves the answer choice must be false. If we can find that confirmation, we’ll select that answer choice and move on. If something in an answer choice doesn't seem familiar and isn’t reflected in our notes on each paragraph, we should mark that answer choice as the possible correct answer. Once we've eliminated the remaining answer choices, we can check the passage to see if we can find evidence that the answer choice cannot be true.

Answer choices

  1. A
    A court rules that Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited

    (A) Could this hypothetical occur based on the main point and our notes?

    Sure. Our note for the second paragraph is, "Debate on email privacy (opinions vary based on circumstances) and government employee example (deleting emails)." That suggests the passage contains some information about government employees deleting their emails. Even if we don't recall the specific details conveyed in this part of the passage, we can at least surmise that the passage provides information that supports this claim. For that reason, we can assume (A) is supported (at least enough to pass the low barrier of "could be true") and cross it off without checking the passage — or at least table it until we find an answer choice that is not reflected in our notes.

    Now, if we needed to review the passage to eliminate (A), we could re-read the part about the debate over government emails. According to one side of the debate, government employees are civil servants whose records should be available to the public (P2, S4-5). In light of this argument, a court could find this argument persuasive and rule that a government office has to keep its electronic mail intact because doing so is in the public interest, as this answer choice says.

    Because this answer choice could be true, it is not the right choice.

  2. B
    A private–sector employer is Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    (B) Could this hypothetical occur based on the main point and our notes?

    Well, this doesn't contradict the main point or our notes. But this isn't reflected in the main point or our notes, as neither of which contains information about telephone privacy. We should, therefore, mark this as a possible correct answer and keep checking the passage to see if we find an option that contradicts the main point or our notes (and is thus more likely to be the correct answer). If we cannot find an answer choice that contradicts the main point or our notes, we can check the passage to see if we can find evidence that this answer choice cannot be true. 

    If we needed to review the passage to eliminate (B), we'd find evidence that this answer choice could be true in the first paragraph. We could locate this reference if we highlighted the author's comparison or took advantage of the CTRL/Command + F search function. Either way, the first paragraph points out that it is illegal in many places for an employer to eavesdrop or wiretap private conversations or phone calls (P1, S3).

    So, such an employer could be liable for breaking the law, as this answer choice claims.

    Because this answer choice could occur, it is not correct.

  3. C
    A court upholds the Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C matches the stem

    (C) Could this hypothetical occur based on the main point and our notes?

    Like (B), this doesn't contradict the main point or our notes. But this isn't reflected in the main point or our notes, as neither of which brings up destroying paper versions of government documents. We should, therefore, mark this as a possible correct answer and keep checking the passage to see if we find an option that contradicts the main point or our notes (and is thus more likely to be the correct answer). If we cannot find an answer choice that contradicts the main point or our notes, we can check the passage to see if we can find evidence that this answer choice cannot be true. 

    Once we elect to review the passage, we'd see that this answer choice must be false. Our note for the second paragraph — "Debate on email privacy (opinions vary based on circumstances) and government employee example (deleting emails)" — should prompt us to review that paragraph. In the second paragraph, the author says that government offices must preserve at least the paper copies of their communications (P2, S3). So, a court would not rule that a government office can destroy both electronic and paper copies of its documents, as this answer choice says. So, (C) is the correct answer because it contradicts information in the passage.

  4. D
    A court upholds a Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    (D) Could this hypothetical occur based on the main point and our notes?

    Sure. Our note for the third paragraph is, "Another example of debate on email privacy (automotive employees fired for insulting manager over email)." That strongly suggests a private-sector employer could monitor email messages sent between employees on the company system. Even if we can't recall the specific details conveyed in this part of the passage, we can at least figure that the passage provides enough information for this answer choice to clear the low hurdle of "could be true." For that reason, we can assume (D) is supported and cross it off without checking the passage.

    If we had to review the passage to eliminate (D), we'd see the author describes a court case where private sector employees were fired on the basis of disparaging remarks they made about their supervisor (P3, S3-4). This court ruled in favor of the employer because the employer owned the computer system on which the employees had sent their emails (P3, S5). This being the case, were another private employer to intercept emails between employees, chances are decent that a court would rule in the employer's favor, as this answer choice states.

    Because this hypo is likely to occur, this is not correct.

  5. E
    A court rules in Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    (E) Could this hypothetical occur based on the main point and our notes?

    Sure. Our note for the third paragraph is, "Another example of debate on email privacy (automotive employees fired for insulting manager over email)." That strongly suggests a private-sector employer could monitor email messages sent between employees on the company system — even if they said they wouldn't. We can safely assume that the passage provides enough information for this answer choice to clear the low hurdle of "could be true." For that reason, we can cross off (E) without checking the passage.

    If we had to review the passage to eliminate (E), we'd see that that courts have already ruled in favor of private-sector employers and against employees who sent messages over the company email system and were fired because of the content of their messages (P3, S5). So, were a case to come up like in the answer choice, regardless of whether the supervisor told the employee that messages would not be monitored, a court might follow precedent and rule in favor of the employer.

    Because this hypo could occur, this answer choice is not correct.

What this tests

Question analytics

Based on historical answer selection rates for this question.

Answer choice distribution

  1. A 5%
  2. B 12%
  3. C Credited 64%
  4. D 3%
  5. E 16%

Deeper help

Ask follow-ups on any step

Optional AI tutor mode will let you interrogate assumptions, compare answers, and drill weak patterns without leaving the page.

Human-written explanations stay primary; AI is an add-on when you want it.

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion