Question

@Steph, Happy to help. The question asks, "The passage provides the most support for inferring which one of the following statements?" (A) says, "in most transactions involving the transfer of non-intellectual property, at least some rights of ownership are retained by the seller." The only part of the passage that deals with non-intellectual property is the statement in lines 21-24, and this is brought up to discuss the retention of rights. However, we're not told anything about 'most' transactions, so how are we to know that (A) is true? We simply can't infer this from the passage, this answer choice is out. (B) says, "The notion of retained rights of ownership is currently applied to only those areas of law that do not involve intellectual property." The problem with this answer choice is that the second paragraph of the passage already makes the implication that retained rights are applied to intellectual property. In the second paragraph, we're told in lines 28-34 that "among the rights typically retained by the original producer of an object such as a literary manuscript or a musical score would be the right to copy the object for profit and the right to use it as a guide for the production of similar or analogous things—for example, a public performance of a musical score." If these typss of rights are typically retained, then it stands to reason that retained rights are being applied to intellectual property, too. Thus, we can get rid of (B). (C) says, "The idea that ownership of the right to copy an item for profit can be transferred is compatible with a tangible-object theory of intellectual property." Understanding the second paragraph well is crucial to recognizing that (C) is an inference we can make. In the second paragraph, we're told in lines 17-21, "But if the owner transfers ownership of the object, the full complement of rights is not necessarily transferred to the new owner; instead, the original owner may retain one or more of these rights." This is what the author refers to as 'retained rights,' and we're then told in lines 24-28 that these rights are compatible with the tangible-object theory. Although we're told this, just because the original creator/owner can retain rights (like the right to copy an item for profit) when transferring property, this doesn't mean that the original owner must retain those rights. "May" and "must" are two different things, and the owner doesn't have to hold onto these rights if they don't want to. The concept that the original owner could theoretically transfer the rights that are typically retained in copyright law is compatible with the tangible-object theory, so (C) is our correct answer choice. (D) says, "Ownership of intellectual property is sufficiently protected by the provisions that, under many legal systems, apply to ownership of material things such as land." One problem with this answer choice is that it mentions 'many legal systems,' and as noted above, we simply don't have any information on 'many' legal systems. We don't know that a bunch of countries have in their law pertaining to copyright law. The other problem is that the main point of the passage is not in favor of the tangible-object theory; the main point the author is making is that the tangible-object theory doesn't work. However, with (D), it's trying to say that the tangible-object theory does work ("sufficiently protected"), so it goes against the main point of the passage (the main point of the passage is lines 39-47 of the text). Because of this, we can get rid of (D). (E) states, "Protection of computer programs under intellectual-property law is justifiable only if the programs are likely to be used as a guide for the production of similar or analogous programs." One thing wrong with (E) is that there's no mention anywhere of computer programs. Additionally, while the passage does describe using intellectual property as a guide for the production of similar or analogous things, this was mentioned in the passage as an example of a type of right that's typically retained by the original owner (this is from lines 28-34). Nowhere in the passage did it say that the programs being likely to be used as a guide for the production of similar or analogous things was a necessary condition for ownership of intellectual property. Because of this, we can get rid of (E), as it has no support. Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any more questions!

Yes. Thank You!

@Steph you're welcome!

Thanks for the answer, Ravi, but I wasn't fully satisfied with your explanation of why (B) was incorrect. If we refer to lines 28-34 that "among the rights typically retained by the original producer of an object such as a literary manuscript or a musical score would be the right to copy the object for profit..." does not the use of the conditional "would be" indicate that the following examples have not occurred? This is as opposed to the author using "have been" to indicate that the following examples are drawn from reality.

@Matthew- Roharbach, "Would be" is ok to use to describe reality here. The author is giving us examples here of rights typically retained. It might have been better if the author used "are," but I think they chose to use "would be" because they were talking about rights that were "typically" retained.