Copyright laws protect the rights

Answer choices

1. A

   Out of Scope: future changes3% picked this

   Computer-software writers are not an influential enough group in Jawade for the government to consider modifying existing copyright laws in order to

   This conclusion is only a present tense claim about whether software writers currently don't have protection for their profit rights. The author isn't assuming anything about whether or not these software writers might have protection in the future. The negation of this answer says, "the software writers are influential enough that the government will consider changing the law so that (one day) they would have profit rights protected." That wouldn't weaken the author's conclusion that currently the profit rights are not protected.

   3%
2. B

   Correct91% picked this

   No laws exist, other than copyright laws and patent laws, that would protect the profit rights of

   Why this is right

   This answer, like (A), has the lovable ruling-out language (not / no) of a Defender answer. When we negate it, it says, "There are laws that exist, beyond copyright / patent laws, that would protect the profit rights of the software writers." That would badly weaken the argument. In fact it would pretty much contradict the conclusion! On Necessary Assumption, if negating an answer turns it into a weakening idea, then it's the correct answer. Another way to think about this answer is conditionally. We could equivalently state this answer by saying "the only laws that protect the profit rights of software writers are copyright laws and patent laws". That would look conditionally like: protects profits ? copyright / patent laws And by contrapositive ~copyright and ~patent ? ~protect profits That's how the argument flowed. The courts established that the software writers don't qualify for copyright and patent law protection. And from that, the author moved to the notion that profit rights aren't protected.

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

   91%
3. C

   Too Strong0% picked this

   Most of the computer software used in Jawade is imported from

   Too Strong: most Out of Scope: imported The word "most" is wrong on Necessary Assumption 98% of the time we see it. It wouldn't make any difference whether 49% of Jawade's software were imported or whether 51% were imported, so there's no reason the author's argument needs it to be 51%. In fact, the notion of imported vs. domestic software is irrelevant to begin with.

   0%
4. D

   Irrelevant Distinction1% picked this

   Computer software is more similar to writings covered by copyright laws than it is to inventions

   All the author's argument cares about is that software writing doesn't qualify for patent law or copyright law. This answer is about which one it's closer to qualifying for. It doesn't matter whether software writing is closer to being covered by copyright law or by patent law. The bottom line of the premise is that software writing doesn't qualify for either one.

   1%
5. E

   Irrelevant Distinction4% picked this

   Copyright laws and patent laws in Jawade have not been modified since

   This answer has the lovable ruling-out "not", so let's negate it and see if it turns into a weakening idea: Copyright and patent laws have been modified since their original adoption. That would have no effect. Regardless of how they've been modified over the years, in their present form, the courts don't think that software writing qualifies for either copyright or patent protection.

   4%