Reading comp PrepTest 157 · Section 4 · Question 23
Passage
This passage was adapted from an article published in 1991. Because it is relatively easy and inexpensive to produce copycat
Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage Summary Topic:
Legal
Paragraph 1
Modifying existing copyright law to cover computer software coding, rather than extending patent protection to computer software’s algorithms, is sufficient to protect the financial incentive to develop innovative software.
Key Lines?
Paragraph 1, Sentences 2-3 (P1, S2-S3) - Problem defined
P1, S4 - Debate between copyright and patent proponents
P2, S3 - Patent propopents' view
P2, S7 - Author's rebuttal of patent proponents
P3, S5 - Author's conclusion
Meta-Structure?
Resolving a Debate: There's clearly a debate in this passage. On one side, most legal commenters want to protect computer software innovation with copyright law. On the other, some commenters wish to supplement copyright protection by extending patent law to software. A passage featuring a debate could either utilize a Describe a Debate or a Resolve a Debate Meta-Structure — it all depends on whether the author is passive or active in the passage. A passive author will generally describe the debate without taking a side or attempting to reconcile the two sides. An active author will argue that one side is preferable or that both sides can get along. This author clearly takes a side. The author rebuts the patent proponents' view in the last sentence of the second paragraph and asserts that copyright law is enough to protect patent protection in the third paragraph. So this passage is best understood as a Resolve a Debate passage. Accordingly, the main point will be how the author resolves the debate: by asserting that modifications to copyright law are enough to preserve software innovation — that patent protection isn't necessary.
(We could also classify this as a Problem/Solution passage. However, copyright and patent protection were introduced in the context of a debate between two legal commentators (P1, S4). Additionally, the author spends far more time responding to the patent fans' views than proposing a solution to how copyright law can be modified. So, we think this passage is better understood as a Resolve a Debate passage.)
Last Thoughts?
Like the third passage of this section, this one also describes a debate. As was the case for the third passage, it's advisable to jot down or memorize some basic facts about each side of the central debate. So let's try to remember the following: copyright law protects the way ideas are expressed, while patent law protects the ideas as long as they are a product of the invention. Remembering those basic facts will help us avoid having to fish for the correct answer in the passage.
Legal
Paragraph 1
- Paragraph note
- Problem (computer software easy to replicate), debate over solution (copyright vs. patent)
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
- Cause-and-effect relationship: Ease of replicating software and lack of legal protection causes lack of financial incentive to produce computer software (second and third sentences)
- Paragraph note
- Background on computer software/algorithms, proponents of patents, author's view on patents
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
- Comparison: Distinction between "product of invention" and "law of nature"/"logical axiom" (fifth sentence)
- of patentable process: innovative way to induce chemical reaction (fourth sentence)
- of product of invention: innovative windmill design (sixth sentence)
- of law of nature: wind can produce energy (sixth sentence)
- Author's attitude: "software algorithms ... should not be considered patentable" (last sentence)
- Paragraph note
- Author's conclusion: Copyright enough to protect software
- Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
- Comparison: copyright for execution (similar to software) and patent for underlying invention (third and fourth sentences)
- Author's attitude: "no compelling justification" (first sentence), "more appropriately" (second sentence), "more effectively afforded" (last sentence)
Modifying existing copyright law to cover computer software coding, rather than extending patent protection to computer software’s algorithms, is sufficient to protect the financial incentive to develop innovative software.
Key Lines?
Paragraph 1, Sentences 2-3 (P1, S2-S3) - Problem defined
P1, S4 - Debate between copyright and patent proponents
P2, S3 - Patent propopents' view
P2, S7 - Author's rebuttal of patent proponents
P3, S5 - Author's conclusion
Meta-Structure?
Resolving a Debate: There's clearly a debate in this passage. On one side, most legal commenters want to protect computer software innovation with copyright law. On the other, some commenters wish to supplement copyright protection by extending patent law to software. A passage featuring a debate could either utilize a Describe a Debate or a Resolve a Debate Meta-Structure — it all depends on whether the author is passive or active in the passage. A passive author will generally describe the debate without taking a side or attempting to reconcile the two sides. An active author will argue that one side is preferable or that both sides can get along. This author clearly takes a side. The author rebuts the patent proponents' view in the last sentence of the second paragraph and asserts that copyright law is enough to protect patent protection in the third paragraph. So this passage is best understood as a Resolve a Debate passage. Accordingly, the main point will be how the author resolves the debate: by asserting that modifications to copyright law are enough to preserve software innovation — that patent protection isn't necessary.
(We could also classify this as a Problem/Solution passage. However, copyright and patent protection were introduced in the context of a debate between two legal commentators (P1, S4). Additionally, the author spends far more time responding to the patent fans' views than proposing a solution to how copyright law can be modified. So, we think this passage is better understood as a Resolve a Debate passage.)
Last Thoughts?
Like the third passage of this section, this one also describes a debate. As was the case for the third passage, it's advisable to jot down or memorize some basic facts about each side of the central debate. So let's try to remember the following: copyright law protects the way ideas are expressed, while patent law protects the ideas as long as they are a product of the invention. Remembering those basic facts will help us avoid having to fish for the correct answer in the passage.
Question prompt
Which one of the
Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right
Credited answer: B
The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.
Question Type
Legal
Answer choices
-
AAlthough patent protection is Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice A is not credited
An efficient test-taker wouldn't read past "patent protection is needed." That's the exact opposite sentiment the author expresses in this passage, so this can be eliminated without further reading. If you did, you would also note it claims "existing copyright laws adequately protect" software programs' algorithms, which conflicts with the author's assertion that algorithms don’t need protection and the claim at the end of the passage that protection of software requires a "slight modification to existing laws” -
BLegal protection for software Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice B matches the stem
Question Type:
Major Point/Main Point
Strategy Overview:
Reiterate the main point as we summarized it after reading through the passage, then find the answer that best matches with it
Answer Anticipation:
As discussed in the "Meta-Structure" section above, this passage utilizes a Resolving a Debate Meta-Structure. In such a Meta-Structure, the main point is how the author resolves the debate. In this case, the author resolves the debate by taking a side, asserting that modifications to copyright law are enough to preserve software innovation — and that patent protection isn't necessary. Let's look for an answer choice that expresses that idea.
Answer Choice Explanation:
This answer choice states almost precisely what we anticipated, and it is correct. It describes the authors' resolution of the debate accurately — that we only need to modify existing copyright law to protect software programs. Some test takers may take issue with this choice because it doesn't explicitly mention patent law. But that is not an issue here, since the reference to legal protection "beyond that which could be provided through ... copyright laws" would naturally include patent law. So patent law is acknowledged by this answer choice tacitly.
Key Takeaway:
We can sometimes learn how the test-writers expected the test-takers to misunderstand the passage through the wrong answers on Main Point questions. Three of the four wrong answers suggested that the author was pro-patent protection for software development. Expect many wrong answers on subsequent questions to assert similar views — such as arguing that the author thinks creating software or algorithms is an act of invention and not merely the execution of an idea. Let's remind ourselves that the author is pro-copyright protection and thinks that algorithms are not a genuine act of invention before proceeding to further questions. -
CWithout the legal protection Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice C is not credited
The author argues the opposite of this — that patent law is not needed to protect software developers' financial incentive to develop innovative software. -
DIssuing patents for software Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice D is not credited
This is the third answer choice to suggest that the author prefers or sees merit in using patent law to protect software. The author claimed that there's "no compelling justification" for such protection (P3, S1), so we can cast off this choice. -
ECopyright protects only the Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice E is not credited
This is true, but it's not the author's main point. The author's main point was that this copyright protection is the only legal protection needed to maintain the financial incentive to create innovative software.
What this tests
Question analytics
Based on historical answer selection rates for this question.
Answer choice distribution
Accounts
Save your place across PrepTests
Bookmark questions, build weak-spot lists, and pick up exactly where you left off—built for serious repeat practice.
No payment yet. We will only email when accounts open.
Already have an account? Log in
Deeper help
Ask follow-ups on any step
Optional AI tutor mode will let you interrogate assumptions, compare answers, and drill weak patterns without leaving the page.
Human-written explanations stay primary; AI is an add-on when you want it.
Discussion
No threads yet—be the first to ask a question or share an approach.