Hi @Japesh-Raswant, thanks for your post. As always, let's be sure we have a solid grasp on the stimulus.
This stimulus presents a set of facts rather than an argument; there is no conclusion to speak of. Instead, we are told: (1) some companies make employees sign non-compete agreements, (2) courts increasingly rule that such agreements are not binding, but (3) paradoxically, many firms are unwilling to consider hiring people who have signed non-compete agreements during the period covered by those agreements.
Well, that's odd, right? If courts are not enforcing these agreements, why are companies reluctant to hire employees who may have signed such an agreement?
The question stem asks us to explain or resolve this apparent paradox.
Answer choice (A) does this. If it is true that "many companies will not risk having to become involved in lawsuits, *even suits that they expect to have a favorable outcome,* because of the associated costs and publicity," then it makes sense that companies are not willing to hire employees who have signed non-compete agreements for the period of time covered by such an agreement. Imagine that Susie was employed by Company A and signed a non-compete for a year. Before the year is over, she leaves Company A and tries to get a job with Company B. Even though Company B knows that a court will likely NOT enforce the non-compete agreement Susie signed with Company A, Company B may wish to avoid any risk of being caught in the middle between Susie and Company A, should Company A decide to sue Susie for violating her non-compete agreement.
Hope this helps to clarify. Please let us know if you have any additional questions.
