Logical reasoning PrepTest 144 · Section 2 · Question 14

Incorrect. The stimulus isn't about a legal obligation "to customers" but rather to copyright holders.

Incorrect. There's no indication that the management at Grandview witnessed this customer printing out infringing photos as it was a self-serve kiosk.

Incorrect. First, there's no indication that Grandview didn't do this. Second, even if we knew they didn't, this still doesn't establish that they knowingly aided a copyright infringer. Not posting this notice may establish they did something wrong, but not that they're guilty of copyright infringement.

Incorrect. First, there's no indication that Grandview isn't doing this. Second, even if they weren't, this answer doesn't establish that not doing so means you're knowingly aiding anyone in illegal activities that they do perform on the property.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen (Principle)

Stimulus Summary:
P: Knowingly aiding someone in copyright infringement → Guilty of copyright infringement

A: A customer printed photos that a wedding photographer had the copyright in at a self-serve kiosk at a department store, so that store is guilty of copyright infringement.

Answer Anticipation:
For these Principle/Application questions, it's important to clearly diagram out the conditional statement so that its details can be easily compared to the details in the application.

Here, the person printing out the copyrighted photos is said to have "infringed" on the copyright of the photographer, so that part of the sufficient condition (someone committing infringement). And the argument does reach a conclusion that's justifiable based on the principle—that the store is also guilty of copyright infringement.

However, there's another key detail that needs to be met for the sufficient condition to trigger—the store must "knowingly aid" the copyright infringement. Here, the customer used a self-serve kiosk to print out the photos, so there's no indication the store "knowingly aid[ed]" that infringement. Since we are tasked with finding an answer that justifies the application of the principle, we should find an answer that establishes Grandview Department Store should be considered to have knowingly aided in this infringement.

Answer Explanation:
Finally, an answer that brings up knowingly aiding in the copyright infringement! It was, after all, a key term in the sufficient condition. Grandview provided a service that can be expected to be used to print out copyrighted photos ("can be expected" is a very low bar). This answer establishes that doing so means any copyright infringement should be considered to be knowingly aided by that person/business. Ergo, Grandview should be considered to have knowingly aided this customer in infringing on the photographer's copyright, and the principle then justifies holding them guilty of that infringement, as well.

Key Takeaway:
Frequently, when an argument (or application) applies a conditional/principle to a specific situation, it will miss the mark at establishing the entirety of the sufficient condition is met. Checking that the application meets the sufficient condition should be your first check in any question that attempts to apply a conditional.