Reading Comprehension

PT102 · S1 · P1 · Q3 Office Email Privacy

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Reading Comprehension question.

Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one
Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step
81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Most office workers assume that the messages they send to each other via electronic mail are as private as a telephone call or a face-to-face meeting.

Topic

The privacy (or lack thereof) of electronic mail in the workplace and government, and the complex legal and ethical issues surrounding it.

Framework

Problem / Solution

Main Point

E-mail is far less private than most people assume, and while there's a lot of legal confusion and ongoing debate about privacy rights in different contexts, the only real way to ensure privacy is to use inconvenient encryption. (Best encapsulated at the end of para 1 and the last two sentences of the passage: "That assumption is wrong..." and )

P1: Introduction & The Core Problem

Most people think work e-mails are private, like calls or in-person talks, but that's incorrect. Laws protect other communications, but not clearly e-mails yet, making e-mail privacy a thorny legal issue.

P2: Government E-mail Controversies

Privacy expectations for government emails are debated—some want officials able to delete records, arguing paper copies exist, but others counter that digital records contain unique info and should be public since civil servants work for the people.

P3: Private Sector Example—No Privacy for Employees

A real-world example: Employees were fired for using work e-mail to criticize a boss. The company legally won because the computers belonged to the employer, not the staff, so supervisors could monitor messages.

Which one of the following most accurately states the organization of the passage?

Correct
A problem is introduced, followed
Why this is right
This definitely does not adhere to the "one ingredient per paragraph" formula. A problem is introduced 1st paragraph (how private should email be?) specific examples illustrating the problem 2nd and 3rd paragraphs (here are some of the questions about email privacy within government / here are some questions about email privacy in the private sector) a possible solution is suggested This skips right to the last sentence, before the semicolon (the only solution may be to encrypt messages with codes) acknowledgement of its shortcomings The backend of the final sentence (but that undermines the convenience of email) Why is this correct answer psychotically taking the final sentence, dividing it in half, and presenting each half as a big picture ingredient? Good question, me. It's partly to be obnoxious, but it's also somewhat respectable because what we care about predominantly relates to the overall purpose and framework of the passage. Since this was a Problem / Solution style passage, the fact that there is a Solution offered but rejected is the big payoff moment of the entire passage.
Skill tested: Organization · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.
83% picked this
A problem is introduced, followed
Out of Scope: preferred solution
The author never endorses any solution, so we can't match anything up with "two solutions, the first is preferred to the second".
0% picked this
A problem is introduced, followed
Trap
Weak Last Ingredient Out of Scope: historical circumstances The quickest way to eliminate would be to check the final ingredient and think, "The solution wasn't rejected because it's a partial remedy (it doesn't solve the whole problem). It was rejected because it undermines the principal virtue of email, which is convenience." If we read the whole thing, we'd also struggle to match up "the historical circumstances that helped bring the problem about". We never discuss any history behind how we got to this current problem of trying to figure out how private email should be.
7% picked this
A problem is introduced, followed
Bad Last Ingredient: solution argued for
If we check the last ingredient, we can ditch this since the author never "argues for" any solution. She considers a possible solution and then says, "Unfortunately, that would undermine the #1 thing we like about email".
7% picked this
A problem is introduced, followed
Out of Scope: preferred approach
The first two ingredients make enough sense to keep reading, as we could maybe match up "government vs. private sector" with "two contrasting approaches". But this goes off the rails once it's saying "the second approach is preferred to the first". The author never says she prefers to think about email privacy in relation to the private sector, as opposed to thinking about in relation to the government. And the final paragraph certainly doesn't try to defend a preference for thinking about this privacy issue in relation to business more so than in relation to government.
2% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill

LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free