medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
Until recently, employees who blew the whistle on corporate fraud were protected from retaliation only if they reported the misconduct to a government agency. A new appellate ruling extends that protection to employees who report fraud internally, to their own company's compliance department. The court reasoned that internal reporting is often the fastest route to stopping ongoing fraud, and that punishing employees for using it would discourage exactly the conduct the law was designed to encourage.
Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main conclusion of the court's reasoning?
- Anti-retaliation safeguards ought to cover workers who disclose wrongdoing through their employer's own compliance channel, not solely those who go to regulators.
- Internal reporting is generally the quickest available means of halting fraud while it is still occurring.
- The whistleblower statute was originally enacted in order to encourage employees to come forward about corporate fraud.
- Every employee who suspects any workplace impropriety must report it internally before any external disclosure can be protected.
- Government agencies have historically been the only bodies authorized to investigate allegations of corporate fraud.
Sign up free to see the explanation and track your rank →
More LSAT Logical Reasoning practice
- Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?
- Which one of the following can be properly inferred from the statements above?
- The question type just described is best identified as which one of the following?
- The reasoning in the argument is flawed in that the argument
- The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument
- Which one of the following most accurately describes the relationship the statement establ
- Which one of the following can be validly inferred from the two conditionals above?
- Which one of the following must be true given the statement above?