PrepTest 157
[lcid:3727] Prep Test 157 LSAT — Reading Comp — S4
Reading comp
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
In the final paragraph,
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
-
Aan example of a Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice A is not credited
We're looking for an answer choice that says the claim from the question stem is there to advance the author's conclusion. This answer choice does not say that, so it should be quickly crossed off. If you wanted another reason to eliminate this choice, a "counterintuitive claim" means the claim is inconsistent with commonly held beliefs or common-sense expectations. The author did not discuss any such claims in the third paragraph. -
Ba rationale for the Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice B matches the stem
Question Type:
Argument Structure/Role of Detail
Strategy Overview:
Review reference to the assertion that "software programs constitute the expression of ideas in the form of specific texts" in the passage, consult your notes, and choose answer choice based on your understanding of how that reference serves the purpose of the third paragraph in the passage's overall argument.
Answer Anticipation:
This question asked us why the author inserted the claim that "software programs constitute the expression of ideas in the form of specific texts" into the third paragraph. Unless a sentence in a paragraph conflicts with the overall role of a paragraph, the sentence is there to advance the role of that paragraph. So reviewing the role of the third paragraph, which we hopefully included in the notes on our scratch paper, will generally reveal why the author included that sentence.
Reviewing the role of the third paragraph, that's where the author concludes that using copyright is sufficient — and patent law is not necessary — to protect computer software. The claim that "software programs constitute the expression of ideas in the form of specific texts" is part of the support for that conclusion. Notice how right after making that reference, the author concludes that software programs "fall more appropriately within the established domain of copyright law" (P3, S2). So this claim was included to advance the author's conclusion that copyright law is enough to protect computer software from illicit copycat programming.
Answer Choice Explanation:
"Rationale" just means "reason" in this context, so this matches our anticipation beautifully. The author included the claim from the question stem to provide a reason for their position. This is correct.
Key Takeaway:
Questions that ask about a role of a particular detail are among the most anticipatable questions on the LSAT. Anticipate using your notes, and rely on that anticipation to quickly eliminate all the choices that do not conform to your anticipation. -
Ca causal explanation for Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice C is not credited
We're looking for an answer choice that says the claim from the question stem is there to advance the author's conclusion. This answer choice does not say that, so we should eliminate it without reservation. If you wanted another reason to get rid of this choice, there are no causal claims or phenomena described in this paragraph. -
Da layperson's definition of Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice D is not credited
We're looking for an answer choice that says the claim from the question stem is there to advance the author's conclusion. This answer choice does not say that, so we should cross it off without giving it a second thought. But if you wanted another reason to eliminate this answer choice, a "layperson's definition" simply refers to a definition that could be understood by a non-expert. Such definitions generally use simplified language or analogies to commonly understood concepts. The statement from the question stem uses neither, so we have no reason to believe that this was intended to be a "layperson's definition." -
Ea point of consensus Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice E is not credited
We're looking for an answer choice that says the claim from the question stem is there to advance the author's conclusion. This answer choice does not say that, so we should rule it out. And, of course, the author does the exact opposite of finding a point of consensus between opposing viewpoints in the third paragraph. The author uses the third paragraph to conclude that one side is wrong and the other is right.
What this tests
Discussion
-
What makes E wrong? 1 reply
Started by Phillip-DuVentre