Main content
Course: LSAT > Unit 1
Lesson 10: Reading Comprehension - Worked Examples- Law passage overview | Cosmic Justice (paired passages)
- Main point | Law passage | Cosmic Justice
- Recognition | Law passage | Cosmic Justice
- Inferences about views | Law passage | Cosmic Justice
- Inferences about info | Law passage | Cosmic Justice
- Principles | Law passage | Cosmic Justice
- Analogies | Law passage | Cosmic Justice
- Law passage overview | Copyright
- Main point | Law passage | Copyright
- Purpose of reference | Law passage | Copyright
- Applying to new contexts | Law passage | Copyright
- Humanities passage overview | Music (paired passages)
- Main point 1 | Humanities passage | Music
- Main point 2 | Humanities passage | Music
- Recognition | Humanities passage | Music
- Inferences about views | Humanities passage | Music
- Principles and analogies | Humanities passage | Music
- Additional evidence | Humanities passage | Music
- Primary purpose | Humanities passage | Music
- Science passage overview | The Sun
- Recognition 1 | Science passage | The Sun
- Recognition 2 | Science passage | The Sun
- Organizing info | Science passage | The Sun
- Inferences about views 1 | Science passage | The Sun
- Inferences about views 2 | Science passage | The Sun
- Inferences about views 3 | Science passage | The Sun
- Inferences about info | Science passage | The Sun
- Social science passage overview | Wool
- Main point | Social science passage | Wool
- Recognition 1 | Social science passage | Wool
- Recognition 2 | Social science passage | Wool
- Inferences about info | Social science passage | Wool
- Inferences about attitudes | Social science passage | Wool
© 2024 Khan AcademyTerms of usePrivacy PolicyCookie Notice
Purpose of reference | Law passage | Copyright
Watch a demonstration of one way to approach a "purpose of reference" question on the reading comprehension section of the LSAT. Created by Dave Travis.
Want to join the conversation?
- At4:10, answer D is eliminated. Could someone please elaborate why it isn't the correct answer? Thank you!(2 votes)
- Answer D says that these exceptions to the theory "do not substantially compromise the theory as a whole", but the author's whole point in bringing up these exceptions was to make his readers to believe that these examples do in fact compromise the entire theory.(1 vote)
Video transcript
- [Narrator] The author's primary purpose in mentioning the assumption that live broadcasts of sporting events are copyrightable is to, dot, dot, dot. Okay, this is a primary purpose question. Whenever you have a
function of an element, a function of a paragraph, a function of a word, it can help to rephrase the question. I'm going to rephrase this question. What is the purpose? What is the function? Why does the author
include this assumption that live broadcasts of sporting
events are copyrightable? So what we can do is we can
go back up to the passage. We can look at that. We can take this very focused question, What is the author
doing with this element? Get an answer to that
question in our heads, bring it back down to the choices, and cross out the ones that don't match. That's a much faster approach than looking at the choices before we know exactly
what we're looking for. Because if we find ourselves going through the choices one by one, thinking that they all sound good, we're wasting time. It's much better to go
and get your own answer before you look at the choices. So that's what we're going to do. What is the author
doing with this element, with this assumption of sporting events? We're going to go back to lines 42 to 44. Let's have a look. Okay. The assumption. Standard assumption is here. Okay. We're going to read this whole sentence. In fact, let's review
the entire paragraph. According to proponents of
the tangible-object theory, its chief advantage is that
it justifies intellectual property rights without
recourse to the widely accepted but problematic supposition
that one can own abstract, intangible things such as ideas. So the author thinks, you know, this is a problematic supposition that you can own ideas. Okay, let's keep on going. But, we have good contrast here. But while this account seems plausible for copyrightable
entities that do, in fact, have enduring tangible forms, it cannot accommodate
the standard assumption that such evanescent
things as live broadcasts of sporting events can be copyrighted. Okay, so if it can't accommodate
the standard assumption, this standard assumption
presents a problem. Okay, so the standard assumption, this author is using this as a problem with the tangible-object theory. It's a problem with, it cannot
accommodate this assumption. This account cannot
accommodate that assumption. This account is really the
tangible-object theory. So let's go down and find that. There's probably one choice that says the author is using this reference to represent one of the problematic issues with the tangible-object theory
of intellectual property. Okay, so let's try to find that. What is the purpose? What is the author doing? Why did the author do it? To suggest that the tangible-object theory of intellectual property
should not be rejected merely on the grounds
that it seems to lead to certain kinds of
counterintuitive results. Okay, so it's a counterintuitive result that is this assumption, but the author does want to reject the tangible-object theory. The author is finding trouble with the tangible-object theory. We're looking for a problem. The author is using that reference to represent an example
that is problematic. That is not the answer. B, the author included that reference to assert the tangible-object theory of intellectual property
can be creatively applied to apparently intangible things, such as live media broadcasts. No, the author doesn't think it works. It doesn't think that it
can be applied in this way. It is problematic. C, to introduce a critique, okay, now it's starting to look good. A critique of the tangible-object theory of intellectual property
by citing a type of case that in the author's
view must be explained by any satisfactory theory of
intellectual-property rights. So this starts making sense. The author is saying,
look, any satisfactory theory needs to cover everything. The author doesn't think
that it covers this case. So C is looking mighty good. Let's check out D and E. The author included that reference to cite certain exceptions
to the tangible-object theory of intellectual property
and suggest that they are rather marginal and
do not substantially compromise the theory as a whole. No, I mean the author does cite
this exception to the theory but the second half makes D wrong. And suggest that they are rather marginal and do not substantially
compromise the theory as a whole. No, the author thinks
that the theory as a whole has been compromised, has too many problems to be comprehensive. D is wrong. E, to furnish evidence
to counter the claim that the notion of retained rights can be applied to television programming. No, again that doesn't fit
with what we're looking for. We are looking for the fact
that the author is using this example to introduce
a critique of the theory, and says that, look this is a type of case that should be explained. Intangible-object theory
doesn't explain it, doesn't cover it. That's exactly why the author
has included that element, has included that
example in the paragraph.