Q17

[ThaoN810]

Correct answer: (E)

Answer choices (A)-(C) all make cross-discipline comparisons. From the first read, one can gather the impression that both passages are about equally confident in the social norms system to accomplish what is supposed to be the operation of intellectual property law in each's respective community of professionals. Moreover, they don't seem to be aware of each other's argument at all. Hence, we can't compare the strength and weakness between the two systems of social norms.

I went with (D) on my timed test, because of the positive tone of both passages, even though admittedly it's nowhere supported by the text.

(E) clearly applies for passage A. Line 31-34 says that violating these social norms can seriously hamper a comedian's career.

I have more difficulties finding textual support from passage B. My best guess is line 59-61. Honoring the social norms gives a chef a property right similar to rights under trade secrecy law. However, this still does not tell how observing the norms help with a chef's professional career, and I mean beyond in an indirect manner by encouraging other chefs to do the same. In the comedian's case, honoring the norms clearly benefits, since doing the opposite would seriously hamper.

Any thoughts? Many thanks!

[ohthatpatrick]

Great observation about (A) thru (C).

When it comes to trap answers in RC, the two biggest categories for students to work on are:
- too strong / too specific
- unknown comparison

(A), (B), and (C) are definitely unknown comparisons.

(D) has the famous answer-killer of "most", which is too strong / too specific. Where in either passage would we be able to quantity whether more than 50% or less than 50% of comedians and chefs are satisfied?

(E) has very safe wording, since it's just saying "derive SOME professional benefit".

I see what you're saying about having trouble finding as good line reference from psg B to support that. I think the line reference you mentioned is definitely fair.

I would probably also add lines 39-43. Those tell us that recipes are a very valuable form of IP that are NOT effectively covered by current IP law / patent law / copyright law.

If we end up learning (as we do) that the system of norms ends up offering protection for their very valuable IP, I think it's fair to say they're deriving some professional benefit.

It sounds like you're interpreting (E) more narrowly as, "something bad would happen to them if they DIDN'T observe social norms", and it's hard to find anything that sounds like chefs punishing other chefs.

But I think LSAT would say that observing the social norms is what gives the system of norms its power, and having this powerful system of norms "operative among chefs" is what protects the chef's valuable recipes.

Hope this helps.

[LSATN308]

I am having hard time to understand why B is wrong. I did not pick E as I could not find texual reference that talks about "Professional Benefit", so I thought it as Unknown.

When I look at both passage, the social norms for comedian offers protection for the Copyright law aspect only whereas the social norms for the chefs provides identical protection on 3 avenues of law (Copyright, Patent and Trade Secrecy), it's 1 vs. 3, why wouldn't it be better?

Please explain!

[AbhistD667]

I am having hard time to understand why B is wrong. I did not pick E as I could not find texual reference that talks about "Professional Benefit", so I thought it as Unknown.

When I look at both passage, the social norms for comedian offers protection for the Copyright law aspect only whereas the social norms for the chefs provides identical protection on 3 avenues of law (Copyright, Patent and Trade Secrecy), it's 1 vs. 3, why wouldn't it be better?

Please explain!

Even I choose this initially. The problem with this choice is that the social norm amongst chefs is not more detailed than the social norm amongst comedians. Chefs happen to have more scenarios related to IP protection. For each of those scenarios they have a norm which has a similarity with an IP law.

Now think for a min, just because someone has more scenarios in their profession, and thus more norms due to that to cover each scenario, does that make the social norm of that profession more elaborate (detailed) than the one where there is only 1 such scenario (in this case, amongst comedians who have joke stealing as the only concern at least as per the passage)?