Q10 - Copyright statutes benefit

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Principle (Strengthen)

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: We shouldn't extend copyright protection after the author's life for several decades.
Evidence: The cost to society (protected monopolies) is larger than the benefit (incentive to produce original works)

Answer Anticipation:
Usually, correct answers to Principle questions just create an if/then statement that takes us from the most salient idea from the Evidence to the type of judgment we're making in the Conclusion. In this case, I would prephrase, "If additional years after death have more societal cost than benefit, then copyright protection with those additional years is too long."

Correct Answer:
E

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) We need a rule about whether we should extend copyright protection decades after death. This choice gives us principle about "how a statue should be written". Also, "inconsistent in its aims" is not a clear match for any of the arguments buzzwords.

(B) This is a rule that says "if ___ is true, then repeal the statute". We weren't really trying to REPEAL a statute as much as re-write it so that we don't provide copyright protection for extra decades. Also, can we even trigger this rule? Were there conditions justifying the original creation of the statute that no longer apply?

(C) Our conclusion IS about whether a statute is justified. This would provide a rule that says "If a statue isn't justified in every country, then it isn't justified in any country". If we could trigger that rule, we would come close to our conclusion. But can we? Do we know that this statute is "NOT justified in every country". We know that it only exists in some countries, but that has nothing to do with whether it would be justified in all countries.

(D) The phrase "enhances other rights" comes out of nowhere.

(E) This is a rule about how a statute should be designed. That type of rule WOULD allow us to get to our conclusion: "we shouldn't have designed copyright protection to exceed someone's lifespan by several decades". This rule is saying, "If the statute wasn't designed so that societal benefit ALWAYS exceeds societal cost, then you can't justify it based on societal benefit." In the extra decades after the author's death, benefit does not exceed cost, so the statute can't be justified by benefit to society. What's tricky about this answer is that we have to also remember that in the first sentence, the author justified copyright statutes based on their benefit to society.

Takeaway/Pattern: The actual wording of E was tough, since it didn't contain any of the conclusion's key words "this copyright protection is too long". However, it DID contain the premise's keywords. The final sentence shows us the primary premise using the keyword SINCE. Correct answers to principle questions are usually just bridges from the primary premise to the conclusion. Since E was the only answer choice that dealt with benefit exceeding cost, it could have been attractive enough.

#officialexplanation

[ganbayou]

Why is B wrong?
I thought since in the beginning when they started to have copy right statute it is to protect the original work, but after ppl die, it no longer applies to this rule.
So I thought what B says supports the argument since it says "if the condition that originaly justified enacting the statute no longer hold true" which means after ppl die there would be no incentive to produce original works, so...and it costs more, so it's justified to repeal it..or it should say "change" it?

[snoopy]

Why is B wrong?
I thought since in the beginning when they started to have copy right statute it is to protect the original work, but after ppl die, it no longer applies to this rule.
So I thought what B says supports the argument since it says "if the condition that originaly justified enacting the statute no longer hold true" which means after ppl die there would be no incentive to produce original works, so...and it costs more, so it's justified to repeal it..or it should say "change" it?

1) "Repealed" was never implied or mentioned
2) We don't know exactly if a statute should be repealed/changed/applied if the copyright statute conditions no longer hold true (in your example, people dying).
3) The conditions that originally justified enacting the statute doesn't change. It's about why the statute is in place.
4) B doesn't mention anything about benefits, and we need to find an answer choice that will address the conclusion ("copyright statue that grants life + more protection to authors is too long because the costs outweigh the benefits