Self-study
Support Copyright laws protect the rights of writers to profits earned from their writings, whereas patent laws protect inventors’ rights to profits earned from their inventions. ██ ███████ ████ █████████████████ ███████ ████████ ████ █████ ██████ ██ ██████ ██ ██████████ ███ ██████ ██████████ ████ ███████████ ███████ ███ █ ███████ ████ ███ ███ ████ ██████ ███ █████████ ██ ███ ██████ █████████ ████████ ██████████ ███ ██████ ██████ ██ █████████████████ ███████ ██████ ███████████ ██ ███████
Argument Summary
The author provides general context about two types of laws: copyright laws, which protect writers' rights to profit from their writings, and patent laws, which protect inventors' rights to profit from their inventions. We are then told about a specific case: in Jawade, courts ruled that computer-software writers' work fits into neither the copyright nor the patent categories. The author concludes that in Jawade, the profit rights of computer-software writers "remain unprotected."
Analysis: Notable Assumptions
The author tells us about two categories of laws that can protect people's profit rights. Then, because the courts in Jawade have ruled that computer-software writers' work doesn't align with either category, the author concludes that computer-software writers' profit rights aren't protected in Jawade. Notice that this is basically a sufficiency-necessity confusion: just because copyright and patent laws can protect people's profit rights doesn't mean that only those two types of laws protect people's profit rights.
So this is a major assumption the author makes: that if neither copyright nor patent laws protect a certain group's work, that group's profit rights are unprotected. The author thus necessarily assumes, for instance, that Jawade doesn't have some other category of law that does apply to computer-software writers and that protects their profit rights.
6.
Which one of the following ██ ██ ██████████ ██ █████ ███ ████████ ████████
a
Computer-software writers are ███ ██ ███████████ ██████ █████ ██ ██████ ███ ███ ██████████ ██ ████████ █████████ ████████ █████████ ████ ██ █████ ██ ███████ ████ █████████ ██████ ███████
Incorrect. Even if (A) were negated — i.e., even if computer-software writers were influential enough for the government to consider doing this —that would be a hypothetical change that would apply to the future. It wouldn't destroy the author's argument that computer-software writers' profit rights are currently unprotected in Jawade. So (A) isn't a necessary assumption.
b
No laws exist, █████ ████ █████████ ████ ███ ██████ █████ ████ █████ ███████ ███ ██████ ██████ ██ █████████████████ ███████ ██ ███████
Correct. This is the assumption we identified in our analysis. The author argues that, because neither copyright nor patent laws cover the work of computer-software writers in Jawade, the profit rights of those writers are unprotected. This necessarily assumes that there are no other kinds of laws that protect their rights. If there are — i.e., if (B) were negated — then the author's argument would fall apart.
c
Most of the ████████ ████████ ████ ██ ██████ ██ ████████ ████ █████ ██████████
Irrelevant. The argument is about the profit rights of computer-software engineers in Jawade, not about software that is imported to Jawade, however much or little of such software there is.
d
Computer software is ████ ███████ ██ ████████ ███████ ██ █████████ ████ ████ ██ ██ ██ ██████████ ███████ ██ ██████ █████
Incorrect. Regardless of whether computer software is closer to writing than to inventions, the courts in Jawade have ruled that neither copyright nor patent law applies to computer software. That's the key to the author's argument; whether computer software is actually closer to fitting in one category or the other is irrelevant.
e
Copyright laws and ██████ ████ ██ ██████ ████ ███ ████ ████████ █████ █████ ████████ █████████
Incorrect. The author bases his argument on the fact that computer-software writers' work is not covered by copyright or patent law in Jawade. He doesn't make any claims about Jawade's copyright or patent laws themselves, or whether those laws have changed from when they were first adopted. Even if those laws had been modified, they still wouldn't apply to computer-software writers' work in Jawade, based on the courts' ruling. So the author's argument wouldn't be damaged if (E) were false.