Q19

[zhangstagangsta]

I chose answer C based on POE of the other answer choices. However, I could not find support for it in the passage. The only mention of profit is when it comes to retained rights, and the choice supports a statement about transferring rights.

[aileenann]

Hello,

Could you please check the numbering on your question? Unless I am mistaken, PT 58 S 3 Q 19 begins "Anyone who believes in democracy has a high regard for ..."

[zhangstagangsta]

According to my LSAC score report, the reading comprehension section is section 3. The question you´re referring to is section 5.

[aileenann]

Thanks! I am sorry about the mix-up, but I have now found the test you were referring to.

Thanks for your question! I would say that "profit" is not central to answer choice (C) and would focus more on the transferability idea. Then you could look to two parts of the passage for support:

lines 7-11
"It also accepts the premise that ownership of an object confers a number of rights on the owner, who may essentially do whatever he or she pleases with the object to the extent that this does not violate other people's rights."

lines 21-28:
"This notion of retained rights is common in many areas of law; for example, the seller of a piece of land may retain certain rights to the land in the form of easements or building restrictions. Applying the notion of retained rights to the domain of intellectual property, theorists argue that copyrighting a work secures official recognition of one's intention to retain certain rights to that work."

From these we see that rights can separated out from the tangible object, and he see that these rights should be transferrable. This is certainly a hard problem, and not one that finds the amount of support we're used to seeing on an LSAT question, but there is enough.

Other thoughts, comments, or questions?

[haeaznboiyoung]

I had a hard time understanding the first line of the third paragraph. But I understood it as this...

Tangible-object theory justifies intellectual property rights only if it can be put into tangible form. Then the author's POV is that it does not address intellectual property if its not in tangible form. Did I understand this correctly?

So... is the notion that C is correct is that basically copyrighted material can equal tangible-object theory because they are essentially the same? That tangible-object theory requires something physical to be copyrighted but the only difference between the two is that tangible-object theory applies to intellectual theory?

Also I'm not sure why the author's POV is disregarded in terms of when the question stem asks about "the PASSAGE provides the most support..."

I know I'm kind of all over the place with this but my brain kind of just farted when I read this passage

Any insight is appreciated!

[cyruswhittaker]

I found support for answer choice (C) of this question in paragraph two.

In lines 16-17, we are told that the owner acquires ALL of the rights of ownership. Then we're told that even though an owner can transfer ownership, it can be the case that SOME of the rights might be retained by the owner (lines 17-20).

Thus, it is clear that the owner COULD transfer the rights, but it isn't necessary. This is the "can be transferred" part of choice (C).

Then, in lines 28-33, we're given a specific example of a reatined right: the right to copy the object for profit.

So, combining this with the above information, we can infer that this retained right could be transferred. Also, notice that in paragraph one, we're told in lines 7-11, that the tangible-object theory accepts the premise that a person can essentially do whatever he/she wants with the rights, including transferring ownership.

[haeaznboiyoung]

Ah I see now. Thank you very much for the explanation!

[farhadshekib]

I found support for answer choice (C) of this question in paragraph two.

In lines 16-17, we are told that the owner acquires ALL of the rights of ownership. Then we're told that even though an owner can transfer ownership, it can be the case that SOME of the rights might be retained by the owner (lines 17-20).

Thus, it is clear that the owner COULD transfer the rights, but it isn't necessary. This is the "can be transferred" part of choice (C).

Then, in lines 28-33, we're given a specific example of a reatined right: the right to copy the object for profit.

So, combining this with the above information, we can infer that this retained right could be transferred. Also, notice that in paragraph one, we're told in lines 7-11, that the tangible-object theory accepts the premise that a person can essentially do whatever he/she wants with the rights, including transferring ownership.

Good job.

Line 17-20: "But if the owner transfers ownership of the object, the full complement of rights is not necessarily transferred to the new owner".

This implies that all the rights could be given to the new owner.

Lines 28-33: "Among the rights typically retained by the original producer...would be the right to copy the object for profit".

Again, this implies that the original owner, often, but not always, retains the right to copy the object for profit...

So, yea (C) is correct.

[irenaj]

Why is D wrong? I find the corresponding part in the passage: line 24-28 "applying the notion of retained rights...secures recognition ...to retain rights...". Is it different from "suffciently protected"?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Ahh! Stay close to the author's voice on a question like this... The question does not ask for a view that the author attributes to someone else, but something the author says is actually the case. I know it sounds strange, since the question doesn't ask for a view the author would most probably agree with, but something that can be inferred. But if the author challenges something, we wouldn't want to continue to believe that it's still true or could be inferred.

So, I would suggest that the author actually argues against the view expressed in answer choice (D) in lines 39-54. The end of the passage is the author's view most markedly expressed.

Hope that helps!

[zainrizvi]

Is at least the "protected by provisions" supported by the "notion of retained rights" Because I find that piece to be a bit unsupported as well. Just wanted to see where I went wrong.

[shirando21]

Is A wrong because we can't infer most transaction from " this notion of retained rights is common in many areas of law" ?

[zip]

Ahh! Stay close to the author's voice on a question like this... The question does not ask for a view that the author attributes to someone else, but something the author says is actually the case. I know it sounds strange, since the question doesn't ask for a view the author would most probably agree with, but something that can be inferred. But if the author challenges something, we wouldn't want to continue to believe that it's still true or could be inferred.

So, I would suggest that the author actually argues against the view expressed in answer choice (D) in lines 39-54. The end of the passage is the author's view most markedly expressed.

Hope that helps!

Really good point. I wrestled a bit with it, but that clear explanation would have saved me time and trouble.

[melmoththewanderer88]

I have an issue with C.

My question is that while in paragraph 1, it is granted that ownership can be transferred, in paragraph 2, the right to copy for profit is described as being among "retained rights." So, how can we reconcile this being both "transferable" and "retained" at the same time?

[jm.kahn]

I don't get how one can infer C based on lines 17-20 and 28-29.

17-20 only says that "...full complement of rights is not necessarily transferred..." This is different than saying that sometimes these rights are transferred. Rights may not necessarily be transferred doesn't preclude the case that all such rights are not transferred at all; it in fact includes this case.

Any help on this issue about C?
Thanks.

[ohthatpatrick]

Lines 17-20 make it possible that the ORIGINAL owner has 100% of the rights, that the NEW owner has 100%, and everything in between.

So I'm not sure what contingency you're worried about.

You're saying we have no proof that any right has ever ACTUALLY been transferred, only proof that it's POSSIBLE to transfer 1-100% of the rights?

A few things there:
1. Don't be crazy. I say this with LSAT parental love. You're not going to do as well on this test as you could if you're worried about exotic logical loopholes like this. Lines 17-20 are absolutely conveying the commonsense expectation that SOMETIMES all the rights are kept, SOMETIMES all the rights are transferred, and SOMETIMES it's in between.

2. The question doesn't ask for PROOF, it asks for MOST STRONGLY SUPPORTS. You can't demand 100% proof from that question stem. The right answer is the BEST supported, not necessarily perfectly supported.

3. Finally, and not to undermine the previous two points which are more broadly helpful to LSAT studying, (C) doesn't say that SOMETIMES people transfer the right to profit. It only says that it's POSSIBLE.

"compatible with" has the same meaning as "consistent with" on LSAT. They are super weak-sauce. They mean "non-contradictory".

"All mustard is yellow" is compatible with "The Redskins should change their name".

Those two statements do not contradict, thus they are compatible/consistent.

"All mustard is yellow" is incompatible with "All mustard is red".

== other answers ==
Given the open-ended nature of this question stem, the most important thing to read for on a first-pass is "danger words", stuff that's too strong, too precise, or making a comparison we never made.

(A) "most" transactions involving non-intellectual property ... did the passage tell us what's true about 51% or more of transactions involving non-intellectual property?

(B) "only" those areas of law ... nothing is that restrictive

(C) correct answer (it doesn't get any more weakly worded than "compatible with")

(D) "sufficiently protected" ... we can't find anything like that, and the author's misgivings in the final paragraph sound more like the opposite of this.

(E) "only if" is too harsh ... nothing is that restrictive

[JackE760]

I'm still confused about how A can't be correct. I'd understand if A was wrong if the question asked about what was said in the passage, but can we really not infer (as the question asks) that because retained rights are common in many areas of law, that in most transactions involving the transfer of non-intellectual property, at least some rights of ownership are retained by the seller?