Reading Comprehension

PT130 · S2 · P3 · Q15 Tangible-object Theory

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

Start practicing free

Proponents of the tangible-object theory of copyright argue that copyright and similar intellectual-property rights can be explained as logical extensions of the right to own concrete, tangible objects.

Main Point 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 or sporting events can be copyrighted (Third Paragraph).

Passage Map P1 - Describe the tangible object theory. P2 - Outline the perceived support for the tangible object theory. P3 - Point out the inadequacies of the tangible object theory.

15.

According to the passage, the theory that copyright and other intellectual-property rights can be construed as logical extensions of the right to own concrete, tangible objects depends on the claim that

  1. Correct

    any work entitled to intellectual-property

    Why this is right

    This is supported in the first paragraph.

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

    91% picked this

  2. only the original creator of

    Contradiction

    The original creator of an intellectual work can transfer the ownership of that work (second paragraph).

    1% picked this

  3. the work of putting ideas

    Contradiction

    The author states that in many cases the work of conceiving ideas is more crucial and more valuable than that of putting them into tangible form (third paragraph).

    5% picked this

  4. in a few cases, it

    Opposing Point

    This is the author’s admittedly problematic alternative to extending the tangible-object theory.

    1% picked this

  5. the owner of an item

    Unsupported

    While this is true (first paragraph), it is not the claim on which tangible-object theory depends.

    2% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

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

Save and practice this skill
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