Q16

[irenaj]

Does anyone know why B? I can't find any content in the passage concerning tot proponents' view on "retaining rights"--they only voice on assumption of tot in paragraph 1 and justification of tot in paragraph 3. And all content about "retaining rights" locates in paragraph 2.

Any thoughts would be appreciated!

[maryadkins]

Paragraph 2 is an elaboration on TOT as presented in paragraph 1. Retained rights are a feature of both tangible objects (lines 15-25) and, argue TOT theorists, should be for intellectual property (lines 25-34).

[gabriellemacleod]

B was one of the answers that I crossed out first because of "real estate," I thought that it was too narrow and no where did tangible-object theorist mention real estate. Could anyone explain this to me?

Thanks!

[ohthatpatrick]

Well, two separate things here:


1. Real estate IS mentioned in P2. It's the example used to demonstrate the concept of "retained rights". Lines 21 - 24 are talking about selling a piece of land. Selling a piece of land = real estate.

Line 24-25 says that tangible object theorists are "applying the notion of retained rights to the domain of intellectual property".

So that's how we would say (B) is a question that IS answered in the passage. The theorists would say "YES, retained rights can be applied not only to real estate but also to intellectual property."


2. I think you're thinking that this question stem is asking for something more important or profound than what it is. It's not asking, "Which question is the primary concern of this passage?"

It's just asking "Which of these questions gets answered?"

It's just a normal ol' Detail question, but the answers are disguised as questions. Even though real estate WAS mentioned, (B) would be correct even if it brought up something totally random.

If it said "Do tangible objects theorists think that retained rights applies to anything other than sick raccoons?" it would still be correct.

All it takes to say YES to that question is an example of something that ISN'T sick raccoons, or real estate, that tangible object theorists connected with retained rights.

i.e. Pretend that the entire RC passage was this:
Bob thinks that chocolate is delicious.

Does this passage provide an answer to this question:
(B) Does Bob think anything besides stir fried carrots are delicious?

Yes, it does!

[andrewgong01]

I got this question right through elimination and intuitively "assuming/guessing" that P2 views, especially the quoted "theorists", are the proponents of the tangible object theory. However, what was the word or sentence that allows us to know that these theorists are the pro-tangible object theory folks and not some other theorists (Line 26 does not directly say who these "theorists" are) ?

I see P1 introducing and defining the theory. P3 starts by talking about the tangible object theory proponents. But P2 does not really give anything that directly tells us whose view we are talking about.

The potential linkage that I see through re-reading is that P1 is talking about how these proponents are all about applying copyright/ intellectual property as if they were tangible objects and then P2 talks about retained rights in property and makes an analogous argument showing what the retained rights in land property entails for copyrights (e.g. despite selling the music score the right to still make a profit is not lost). However, this still seems to assume that retained rights is something that proponents would espouse as for all we know the concepts of retained rights may be some caveat that these proponents reject. What makes the passage harder is that in P1 we don't get a roadmap that says that these proponents of the tangible object theory are ultimately wrong so it's harder to piece together who has what views or the structure of the passage when we get to P2