Q8 - Some companies in fields

[soyeonjeon]

I chose E for this one. I initially debated between D and E but picked E because the subjects were employees in AC D.

I can cross out B and C easily, but can someone help me understand why D and E are not correct?

Thank you.

[tommywallach]

Hey Soyeon,

So this is an Explain a Result question. Let's start by pointing out what's weird. List out the two contradictory facts:

1) Non-competes aren't binding.

2) Companies still don't want to hire people with non-competes.

We need some reason that a company wouldn't want people with non-competes, even though they wouldn't lose a court battle over it.

(A) CORRECT. Here's a reason! Even though the company will win the battle, the cost in money/publicity isn't worth it.

(B) This would only make the discrepancy weirder! If most people a company would want to hire are already employed by other firms, they'd have to break non-competes to get new employees.

(C) Again, this would make the discrepancy weirder. If the companies knew that non-competes weren't really binding, then they wouldn't mind hiring people with non-competes.

(D) This has to do with whether the employee him or herself would want to break his own non-compete. That has nothing to do with the argument, which says that companies don't want to hire employees with non-competes.

(E) This is totally irrelevant. If non-competes aren't binding, then they don't have anything to do with established relationships or clients. We still don't know what companies don't want to hire an employee under a non-compete. (Also, when you leave a company, you don't usually bring your clients along anyway, non-compete or no. And even if you do, there's nothing in a non-compete that is binding, remember.)

Hope that helps!

-t

[a8l367]

Could someone clarify?

1) Non-competes aren't binding.
2) Companies still don't want to hire people with non-competes.

===> Companies don't want to be involved in lawsuits.

But why thay will be involved? Isn't Non-compete between previous employer and employee?

Thanks

[BarbC178]

I had an inkling that one A was the right answer, and I waffled, however a couple of things made me choose E.

A - In this scenario, wouldn't the non-compete clause be part of a contract between the former employer and the former employee. Why would the new company have any interest in a lawsuit they are not a party to, much less associated costs?

E - "established relationships with clients and other people outside the company"... I imagine that "other people" includes other people within the field, including those that work for/run competing companies. If the employee's relationships are a "valuable asset," the new employee's own value diminishes when they "burn bridges" within their professional community.

Maybe I'm making a lot of assumptions... but E still sounds so much more plausible to me!

[Misti Duvall]

I had an inkling that one A was the right answer, and I waffled, however a couple of things made me choose E.

A - In this scenario, wouldn't the non-compete clause be part of a contract between the former employer and the former employee. Why would the new company have any interest in a lawsuit they are not a party to, much less associated costs?

E - "established relationships with clients and other people outside the company"... I imagine that "other people" includes other people within the field, including those that work for/run competing companies. If the employee's relationships are a "valuable asset," the new employee's own value diminishes when they "burn bridges" within their professional community.

Maybe I'm making a lot of assumptions... but E still sounds so much more plausible to me!

I agree that real world (E) might more sense than (A), but be careful here. We don't care about real world; only about analyzing the logic using the information we're given.

Answer choice A only says companies don't want to risk becoming involved, which is a pretty broad statement. Even if it's only their employee in court, they could still be pulled into publicity, etc.

For (E), there's no information in the stimulus about relationships with clients, etc. So we don't know if any bridges would be burned.

Hope this helps!