Reading Comprehension

PT123 · S4 · P3 · Q18 Web Intellectual Property

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Reading Comprehension question.

  • Save & drill this skill build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

The World Wide Web, a network of electronically produced and interconnected (or “linked”) sites, called pages, that are accessible via personal computer, raises legal issues about the rights of owners of intellectual property, notably those who create documents for inclusion on Web pages.

Central Topic

Intellectual property rights vs. Openness on the Internet

Purpose

To present and weigh in on a debate

Main Point

Linking to sites that display someone else's intellectual property is not a form of copyright infringement, especially given that the owner of the site can restrict access if they want to.

Passage Map

P1 - Framing the debate P2 - Zooming in on the origins of the debate P3 - Author resolves the central question from P2 and offers final thoughts

Other Commentry

This is from 2007, but it sounds like people in the 90's trying to figure out what "the interwebs" are. Also, they give a nicely anachronistic metaphor of "an answering machine".

Okay, cultural anachronisms aside, in terms of solving the big picture of this passage, we have a few key moments. By the end of the 1st paragraph, we can tell there's a debate because we had consecutive sentences saying, "Some of these owners claim" and "Web users, however".

The 2nd paragraph's topic sentence even refers to it as a debate and gives great guidance about the function of that paragraph. The 2nd paragraph ends with a question. Any time you see an LSAT author ask a question, it is almost sure to be integral to the main point/purpose of the passage.

The 3rd paragraph starts with a clear functional foreshadowing, letting us know that the 3rd paragraph will answer this question. We get "therefore" and "hence" telegraphing her conclusions. The last four sentences put the author's overall stamp on the debate, and we learn that she sides more with the "Web users" who want keep the web as open as possible.

18.

Based on the passage, the relationship between strengthening current copyright laws and relying on passwords to restrict access to a Web document is most analogous to the relationship between

  1. allowing everyone use of a

    Bad Match: 1st Half

    Although the 2nd half matches nicely with restricting pages to "members" who know the password, the 1st half sounds like the current situation (anyone can link to a page and read it) rather than the strengthened copyright laws (you're not allowed to link to a page that isn't yours).

    17% picked this

  2. outlawing the use of a

    Bad Match: 2nd Half

    The second half still involves outlawing something, whereas password-protecting webpages doesn't involve making any change to laws. It's a little unclear how we'd match up "user" and "seller" with the Web scenario. Presumably, the page owner is the "seller" and the person being linked to that page is the "user", but in that case the 2nd half should say something like "outlawing a drug vs. restricting whom drugstores can sell that drug to"

    6% picked this

  3. Correct

    prohibiting a sport and relying

    Why this is right

    The first option is a legal prohibition (such as "thou shalt not link to someone else's page), whereas the second option puts the onus on individual people. "Hey, if you don't want to get hurt, put on the right safety gear" matches up pretty well with "Hey, if you don't want everyone to have access to your webpage, put the right password protection on it."

    Skill tested: Analogy · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

    41% picked this

  4. passing a new law and

    Bad Match: 2nd Half

    Adding password protection to a webpage has nothing to do with enforcing a new law. We would want something that sounds more like "passing a new law vs. achieving the same outcome without passing the new law".

    3% picked this

  5. allowing unrestricted entry to a

    Bad Match: 1st Half

    "allowing unrestricted entry" is the current situation, which is the opposite of what the strengthened copyright laws would do.

    34% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free