DISCUSSION: The author’s position on employment contract cases was in the third paragraph: they think monetary damages should be preferred where possible. Courts often lack the resources to enforce specific performance in such cases, and ordering it would often lead to great personal hardship for both the plaintiff and defendant in such cases.
To strengthen this position, we should show either that:
- Money is available, or
- It is generally distasteful to employers/employees to undergo specific performance.
- This weakens the author’s argument. If courts can’t enforce monetary damages, then it’s not clear why money is preferred over specific performance.
- This just puts everything on an even footing. Also, it’s obvious, and therefore doesn’t add much. Any court order is coercion: “do what we say, or go to jail”. So this answer tells us nothing new.
- CORRECT. The author argued that instead of specific performance, courts should award money. This shows that the defendants actually have money to award.
- Why would this matter? The author didn’t talk much about contracts for services in general. And “different” could go either way: it could mean different in a way that argues for or argues against using specific performance. Without knowing which way things are different, this answer tells us nothing.
- The author suggests generally it is employers who sue potential employees (who refused to work). I am not quite sure what this answer is getting at. I think it is saying: sometimes, employees’ rights are more important than employers’ financial loss, and therefore the employer loses their contract case.
Want a free Reading Comp lesson?
Get a free sample of the Reading Comprehension Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving RC questions