This passage was adapted from an article published
Because it is relatively easy and inexpensive to produce copycat computer programs, most people believe that some form of legal protection should be extended to creators of computer software. Without a legal deterrent to copycat programming, the resources expended by an individual or a company to develop an innovative software program could means of preventing this exploitation, some contend that patent protection is also needed to combat copycatting.
In essence, every piece of software is an encoding of one or more algorithms. An algorithm is simply defined as a series of steps to be followed in carrying out a task; to be usable in computer applications, an algorithm must be expressed in terms that can be processed by a computer. processes by which tasks are to be carried out by computers, should not be considered patentable.
Issuing patents for computer programs would extend protection to software developers beyond that afforded by copyright when there is really no compelling justification for doing so. Insofar as software programs constitute the expression of ideas in the form of specific texts (i.e., sequences of computer code), they fall more appropriately within the to existing copyright laws, and the financial incentive to develop innovative software could thereby be preserved.
What this question is testing
Anticipate
The author says patents are not needed (conclusion), then says software is text-based expression (reason), therefore copyright is the right fit. This assertion is the reason supporting the conclusion.
Goal
Find "rationale for the author's position" or equivalent.
Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.