Copyright statutes benefit society

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Conclusion Match2% picked this

   A statute should be written in a way that eliminates any appearance of its being

   We’re told that the aim of copyright protection is to provide an incentive to produce original works. Was the argument saying that any part of copyright protection appeared to go against providing an incentive to produce original works? No the author isn’t saying that “protection for decades after death” appears to go against the motive of incentivizing production of original works. She was just saying that while it does provide society the benefit of incentivizing, it also produces even bigger societal harm (because it creates protected monopolies).

   2%
2. B

   Weak Evidence / Conclusion Match6% picked this

   A statute should be repealed if the conditions that originally justified enacting the statute no

   This is fairy tempting. Does the left side match the evidence and the right side match the conclusion? The conditions that Copyright originally justified ? statute copyright protection should be no longer hold true repealed The original justification for copyright protection was to incentivize production of original works. Did the author ever say that we no longer have that incentive? No, but maybe we could say once an author dies, we no longer need to incentive that now-deceased person to create original works. Was the author saying that once the author dies, the copyright statute should be repealed? No, it wasn’t about repealing a law. It was just about saying the current period of protection is too long.

   6%
3. C

   Bad Evidence/Conclusion Match0% picked this

   A statute that is justified in one country is justified in

   Neither part of the argument matches this move: if statute A is then statute B is justified in ? justified in country X country Y

   0%
4. D

   Bad Evidence/Conclusion Match2% picked this

   A statute should not limit rights unless it can be shown that it thereby

   Neither part of the argument matches this move: if a statute can’t then a statute be shown to ? should not enhance other rights limit rights Our conclusion is saying “You’re granting too much protection, too many rights! Let’s limit those rights a little. They don’t need decades of protection after death.” This answer is set up to support the conclusion that rights should not be limited.

   2%
5. E

   Correct89% picked this

   If a statute is to be justified by its benefit to society, it should be designed so that its societal benefit

   Why this is right

   This is a very hard to understand, complex correct answer. So let's focus on the one thing that would make it easiest to find and like this answer: it's the only one that has language relating to the author's since premise at the end, regarding whether societal benefit is more than offset by societal cost. Does this rule apply to copyright protection? Is copyright protection to be justified by its benefit to society? The author is justifying copyright protection that way, in his first sentence. So according to this rule, copyright protection should be designed so that its societal benefit always exceeds its societal cost. The way it's currently designed, the decades of protection beyond death that are afforded to an author are not meeting that standard. The societal benefit from the additional years are not exceeding societal cost. So this principle allows us to conclude, "copyright statutes shouldn't be designed in such a way that it offers those additional years of protection". Since copyright statutes currently do offer those additional years of protection, we can support the author's conclusion that "this is too long".

   Skill tested: Principle-Strengthen · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   89%