PrepTest 144

[lcid:3672] Prep Test 144 LSAT — Reading Comp — S1 Reading comp

Passage

 . The following passage was adapted from a law journal  . article published in 1998.  .  .       Industries that use Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage SummaryTopic: Legal Studies

Paragraph 1
  • Paragraph note
    • Two groups that agree are introduced; a question is presented
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Biotech business and academics think commercial research should be patentable
    • Question - Are these patents hindering research?
    • Patents facing scrutiny (scientists and policy makers)
Paragraph 2
  • Paragraph note
    • The threat to research is outlined
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Enforcement - A patent holder stops others from using basic research materials
    • Contracts - A patent holder requires someone to pay a lot to use research materials
    • Example - Patent holder asks for money to get research costs back
    • Academics - Fear corporations will charge too much
Paragraph 3
  • Paragraph note
    • The Author pivots to a defense of patents
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Concession - Used to be communal, but not all information was shared
    • Wrong assumption of scientists against patents - Patents allow people to prevent others from using stuff
    • Why wrong - Not applied to noncommercial research for 2 reasons
    • 1 - It's expensive to litigate
    • 2 - Judges don't enforce against academic research
    • Other patent pro - Incentive to research to make money
Main Point:
While researchers fear that biotechnology patents will impede scientific research, their arguments rely on mistaken assumptions, and patents might actually provide an incentive to do research.

Key Lines:
Lines 8-10 - A question/problem is presented
Lines 14-17 - The problem is highlighted
Lines 17-19 - Two specific sources of the problem are noted
Lines 40-44 - The Author points out a mistaken assumption of those who fear patents
Line 47 - The Author introduces one reason they're mistaken
Line 51 - The Author introduces a second reason they're mistaken
Line 54 - The Author brings up a positive of patents

Meta-Structure:
Question/Answer - The passage starts with a question over whether biotech patents are hurting research. The answers make up the debate, with some scientists saying they do and others, along with the Author, saying they don't necessarily and might actually spur research. Since this debate dominates the passage and the Author takes a side, the Author's answer to the question is the main point.

Last Thoughts:
There's an interesting symmetry to the structure of the two arguments—both get explicitly broken into two parts. In Paragraph 2, those who fear patents fear exclusion and contracts. In Paragraph 3, the Author argues that they're wrong for two reasons. Knowing what each of these pairs is supporting, what they say, and where to find them in the passage will likely be key to answering the questions efficiently.

Question prompt

Suppose a university researcher Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: D

The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.

Question Type

Legal

Answer choices

  1. A
    The researcher will probably Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited
    Incorrect. (Lines 30-34) This answer reflects the fear held by some researchers of allowing biotech patents to proliferate, but it's not a fear shared by the Author.
  2. B
    The corporation holding the Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited
    Incorrect. (Lines 47-51) The Author shows that it's probably not worth it to sue, and even if they do, the judge will probably rule against the corporation based on a traditional exception for noncommercial, basic research. So it's wrong to say the Author would expect them to successfully sue.
  3. C
    The university that employs Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited
    Incorrect. There's no discussion of universities banning research based on fear of lawsuits.
  4. D
    The researcher has a Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D matches the stem
    Correct. Question Type:
    Must Be True (Principle)

    Strategy Overview:
    Review what the Author said about patents and then apply it to this situation

    Answer Anticipation/Relevant Lines:
    We're going to treat this as a Must be True (Principle) question. Why? Because this question stem is presenting a specific situation and asking us to apply the argument made by the Author to it. That's very similar to saying that the Author presents a general argument (i.e., a principle), and we need to apply it to a specific case (in the question stem) to reach a judgment (in the conclusion).

    So what does the Author say about patents in basic, noncommercial cases? Well, first, the cost of litigation means that the researcher probably won't be sued (Lines 47-51). And, second, even if they do sue, a judge is unlikely to find them guilty because of a tradition of treating noncommercial research as an exception to infringement (Lines 51-54).

    Let's find either of these prongs of her argument as an answer.

    Answer Explanation:
    (Lines 51-54) The Author notes that judges generally adhere to a traditional exception to patent infringement for individuals engaged in basic, noncommercial research. Since that's the type of research in question, a judge likely wouldn't hold the researcher guilty of patent infringement, so this is the correct answer.

    Key Takeaway:
    Whenever a question asks you to apply a general rule or argument to a specific situation, you can approach it as a Must Be True (Principle) question, even if it doesn't specifically mention a principle.
  5. E
    The corporation will probably Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited
    Incorrect. (Lines 4-7) This seems to be referencing the viewpoint presented earlier on about researchers who support patents since their funding depends on them. That view, however, is separate from the Author's.

What this tests

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion