PT 69 RC, Q11/Q21

Posts: 554
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 8:48 pm

PT 69 RC, Q11/Q21

Postby lawschool2014hopeful » Tue Oct 01, 2013 1:55 pm

For Q11, I cannot convince myself that C is more right than A. The passage seems to communicate implicitly that these old techniques introduce something/valuable for certain photographers, and making an aesthetic value of certain processes seem to fit the bill, whereas the credited answer C, I cant seem to buy into the "surprising" development, I mean, is arguably there, but I feel like presenting that these processes are valuable was more the point

Q21, I cannot see why A is wrong whereas D is right. A presents an upper-bound and suggest that these patent perhaps not that harmful, whereas the connection between profit is unclear, even with the assumption that less profit = less innovation, how much less are we talking about? how much more innovation do we gain from those loss of profits?

Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2013 7:31 pm

Re: PT 69 RC, Q11/Q21

Postby duallys21 » Tue Oct 01, 2013 3:00 pm

I took this test yesterday, so I'll take a shot:

Q11: Its important to remember that the question is asking for the primary purpose of the passage. The passage does make a case for the aesthetic value of the obsolete photographic forms, but it does not seem to be the primary point. One way to tell this might be that the passage does not really go through pains to argue this, for example, it does not consider/refute counter-arguments. From my reading, the 'primary purpose' of the passage was to provide a summary/overview of a recent trend in photography. I think that it is debatable whether this development is surprising, but this is a good example of a time when overthinking the answer choice is counterproductive. The development is surprising because most people would not expect that in an age where digital photography equiptment/processes are more advanced than ever, that there would be a movement like this.

Q21: The way that I thought about this is that A could be true and the argument would still make sense. In other words, software patents could expire after only twenty years and it could still very much make sense to argue that they impede innovation. On the other hand, if it was the case that D is true then patents must in some sense also encourage innovation (insofar as one can assume, and this is not a given assumption, that innovation is often a result of profit incentive in a market system). This weakens the argument somewhat because then patents must also encourage innovation, at least to a point.

Posts: 554
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 8:48 pm

Re: PT 69 RC, Q11/Q21

Postby lawschool2014hopeful » Tue Oct 01, 2013 4:27 pm

After re-reading the passage I find your explanation for Q11 to be very convincing, it seems like I had the same rough idea, but when I pre-phrased it I got sloppy and summarized as a bunch of positive of description of techniques, where I should have been more articulate and careful to say that it more functioned as an explanation of why these old techniques came about, which fits C pretty well.

As for 21, I feel like as you pointed out, we kind of have to assume an association between innovation and profit which I did not find entirely comfortable, and just because A does not make the argument not make sense, couldnt it still weaken it? By establishing an upper-bound, I find this to be difficult to accept on a systematic basis, where you are choosing between a weak weakener vs a somewhat decent weakener but you have to make a somewhat a leap of faith/"common sense" assumption.

User avatar
LSAT Hacks (Graeme)
Posts: 371
Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 9:18 pm

Re: PT 69 RC, Q11/Q21

Postby LSAT Hacks (Graeme) » Wed Oct 02, 2013 9:29 am

You're allowed to use common sense, as long as you don't contradict the passage. Businesses do things they profit from. It's the point of business.

So, less profit for innovation means business won't be as interested in innovating. It's a pretty warranted assumption.

A = patents are less bad for innovation, but still bad

D = patents may be good for innovation

A isn't going in the right direction.

Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests