Reading Comprehension

PT149 · S2 · P3 · Q17 Social Norms & 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

Start practicing free

Passage A Comedians are not amused when their jokes are stolen, and for that reason we might expect joke-stealing disputes to ripen into lawsuits occasionally.

Topic

The protection of creative content (jokes and recipes) among comedians and chefs, and how social norms substitute for ineffective or unavailable legal protection.

Framework

Answer / Explain

Main Point

Even though comedians and chefs can’t rely on traditional intellectual property law to protect their jokes or recipes, both groups use strong social norms within their communities to regulate ownership, copying, and credit—effectively serving a legal-like function and preserving incentives for creativity. (Passage A, paragraph 3) (Passage B, paragraph 1)

P1: Comedy and Copyright Law

Comedians rarely take legal action against joke thieves, even though jokes can be technically protected by copyright. That’s because the cost of litigation is high, legal success is uncertain, and copyright law just doesn’t work well for comedians in practice.

P2: The Puzzle of Comedy Innovation

But if the law doesn’t protect comedians, why do they bother coming up with so much new material?

P3: Social Norms Among Comedians

It’s because comedians have their own system of social norms—a set of unwritten community rules—backed up by consequences like damaging someone’s reputation. This informal “norms system” does most of what copyright law would do: it lets comedians claim ownership, control use, punish joke theft, and gives them a reason to keep coming up with new ideas.

17.

Which one of the following statements is most strongly supported by information given in the passages?

  1. Intellectual property violations are more

    Unknown Comparison: more frequent

    We can't compare the relative frequency of IP violations. Each passage existed in its own world and never quantified what percentage of workers within the industry were affected.

    1% picked this

  2. A more elaborate system of

    Unknown Comparison: more elaborate

    We can't compare the complexity of each system of norms. The fact that the author of passage B delved more into enumerating more specific norms than did the author of passage A doesn't give us strong evidence that comedy has a less elaborate system of norms.

    8% picked this

  3. Chefs enjoy more significant legal

    Opposite, if anything

    The beginning of passage B says that "recipes are not a form of innovation that is effectively covered by current intellectual property laws. They're rarely patentable and ingredient combos can't be copyrighted". Meanwhile, the beginning of passage A explains that "Copyright is the most relevant body of law; formally, it applies to jokes and comedic routines". So the fact that comedians can use copyright law to protect their jokes / routines (combinations of jokes), whereas chefs can't use copyright for combos of ingredients makes it very hard to support this answer. It almost sounds more like comedians potentially have more significant legal protections of their IP.

    2% picked this

  4. Most comedians and chefs are

    Too Strong/Specific

    Too Strong/Specific: most Out of Scope: satisfied with current Neither passage generalizes about whether more than 50% of chefs / comedians are "satisfied" with current IP laws. The fact that a system of social norms has filled in the vacuum caused by a lack of realistic IP law protection suggests that if anything most comedians and chefs do not find current IP laws a satisfactory way of protecting their material.

    2% picked this

  5. Correct

    Comedians and chefs both derive

    Why this is right

    The gist of each passage was that because comedians and chefs can't realistically protect their IP with IP law, a system of norms has developed within each industry to protect their IP. As the end of Passage A explains, "these norms are not merely hortatory (suggestive of proper behaviors, but non-binding). They are enforced with sanctions". By observing social norms as a comedian, you avoid getting badmouthed and blacklisted, which benefits you. Also, you contribute to the legitimacy of the system of norms, which means it will also be there to protect your jokes from being stolen. Similarly, chefs observe three implicit social norms and "together these norms function in a manner quite similar to law-based IP systems". Passage B doesn't explicitly mention punishments one would face if they broke any of these norms, but in both passages the basic idea is that comedians and chefs can invest the time it takes to develop IP (like jokes or recipes), with the confidence that their ownership of that IP will be protected by a system of rules. So for the chefs passage, we're getting "benefit" from a common sense application of The Golden Rule ... if you observe the social norms and don't steal other chefs' recipes, then you will also be extended that IP protection by the same system.

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

    88% 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