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
Based on the passage,
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
-
AThe sequences of computer Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice A is not credited
Do you recall reading that the patent proponents thought that coding was more inventive than creating the algorithms? Probably not. If you don't remember reading about a detail, simply defer and move on to the next answer choice. If you did review the passage, you wouldn't find any support for this claim. The pro-patent folks claimed that encoding algorithms was "analogous to the design of a process" and thus fell under patent law, which covers processes that are the products of invention (P2, S3-S5). This suggests they think their inventiveness has as much to do with the algorithms as with the coding. -
BSoftware algorithms are generic Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice B is not credited
This answer choice seems to conflict with the patent proponents' views. If software algorithms are "generic principles," the algorithms shouldn't be covered by patents, which only cover genuine products of invention (P2, S5). For this reason, we should eliminate this answer choice. If you reviewed the passage, you would see that the author — not the patent proponents — characterizes algorithms as "generic principles" (P2, S7). -
CPatent protection should supplant Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice C is not credited
This answer choice makes a very bold assertion ("sole legal means"), which is very difficult to support and unlikely to be correct. A test-taker who was short on time (or simply used their time efficiently) might defer on this choice to see if another answer choice is easier to support. If you did review the passage, you could see that the patent proponents don't want to replace copyright law to protect computer software. Instead, they want to supplement copyright protection with patent protection as well (P1, S4). -
DBoth the algorithms and Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice D matches the stem
Question Type:
Minor Point/Must Be True
Strategy Overview:
Review the notes to recall patent proponents' views, then find an answer that must be true according to the passage
Answer Anticipation:
This question stem asks us to infer a belief the software patent proponents' would agree with. Their views were described at length in the second paragraph, so reviewing the passage or anticipating what the correct answer will say is probably not a wise investment of our limited time. Instead, we can remind ourselves of what we noted about their views and go on to the answer choices. We'll eliminate each one we know is wrong (for instance, if we know it's a view held by copyright proponents), and we'll defer on any choice that includes a detail we don't remember reading. If we see a detail we recall, even if vaguely, we can review the second paragraph to see if we can find the supporting text.
Answer Choice Explanation:
This seems consistent with the views held by patent proponents. They want to protect the algorithms underlying the computer program through patent law. They also want this patent protection to supplement copyright protection (P1, S4), which covers the coding (P3, S2). So it seems reasonable to conclude that patent proponents want to protect both, making this the correct answer.
Key Takeaway:
This is another ostensibly detail-oriented question that can be answered without referring back to the passage, relying only on your understanding of the main point and the two sides of the debate. -
EAs the number of Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice E is not credited
Do you remember reading about the increasing number of computer programming languages? Probably not. If you don't remember reading about a detail, simply defer and move on to the next answer choice. If you did review the passage, you wouldn't find any support for this claim. Moreover, this answer choice seems to conflict with the patent proponents' views. They want to increase the protection available to software, so it seems unlikely that they think the threat of copycat programming will decrease in the future. Two reasons to eliminate this choice.
What this tests
Discussion
-
B vs D 1 reply
Started by Abigail-Okereke