My understanding is that these software algorithms is meant to perform certain tasks. Like the example in JY's explanation. I could come up with an algorithm for "addition". I could code it in many different ways. A + B or (2A + 2B)/2; these two algorithms are two different expressions of the same thing, they add numbers. So it is okay to copyright these different expressions, but u cannot use patent right to protect the "algorithm of addition" itself.

The proponents of software patent think the coding of an algorithm, or the process of coming up with one, is like process design in chemistry (a series of steps leading to an reaction), which makes the steps under the process and therefore the process itself patentable. Under the same logic, they think the combination of a bunch of algorithms underlying the software should also be patentable.

But the author thinks this is a faulty analogy. Since process design in chemistry requires actual inventiveness. Let's say it's a chemical process that does not occur in nature, but a scientist came up with it which has certain industrial applications, and this makes the whole process a genuine product of invention.

Coding an algorithm, on the other hand, is just a combination of logical steps written out for a computer to carry out. Let's say it's an algorithm for carrying out mathematical addition. The way the programmer wrote it could be unique, so it's under the protection of copyright law, but since the concept of addition itself is just a mathematical concept, not a product of actual inventiveness, the algorithm itself cannot be patented.

I don't know if this answers ur question a). But I think the proponents of software patent is using this faulty analogy to justify their position.

I think ur assumption b) is correct. Since they think the coding of the algorithm is like the processes underlying a new chemical reaction, it's not generic principle but actual invention.

some can also be represented as and here.

e.g. A ←s→ B = there is A that is also B, or A & B.

belief based on reliable info → belief reasonable to maintain

----------------------------------- ←s→ / self-evident & / grounded in observable evidence

we can infer from this:

belief reasonable to maintain ←s→ / self-evident & / grounded in observable evidence

=

there are

belief reasonable to maintain & / self-evident & / grounded in observable evidence

The correct AC E) switched the order of these three things, so it might throw people off a little bit.

The question stem asks the role of "considerations as remote as what an offender did years ago are relevant to the seriousness of an offense," not the role of "it implies considerations as remote as what an offender did years ago are relevant to the seriousness of an offense."

That second sentence, a sub conclusion, is ultimately used as a premise to support the major conclusion along with other premises. In LSAT, most of the time in a weaken/flaw question, you are asked to accept the premises and to demonstrate that even if we accept the premises, the conclusion still does not follow from them.

1st study:

children who slept with night light on as infant vs. a control group

2nd study:

children who slept with night light on as infant vs. a control group

3rd study:

children who slept with night light on as infant vs. a control group

the only difference between the first study and the rest two is that the children in the rest two studies are older than those in the 1st study. and a correlation was found in the 1st study but not the rest two.

I also negated E) initially, and was deciding between A) and E).

I think the problem with E) is that even with this answer choice, we still need the additional assumption in A).

E) "if vapour toxic to human are produced by the degradation of household cleaning products by bacteria in any landfill, then the health of at least some humans will suffer."

But we still need to assume that there is gonna be bacteria capable of doing this in some of the landfills.

Initially, I did not notice the distinction between "below national average" and "lowered the quality", and I thought this was a correlation-causation flaw, which is what I think A) is kinda attractive.

I thought A) was saying that "treats a phenomenon as an effect of an observed change in the face of evidence indicating that it maybe the effect of that change."

But the argument does not make this mistake, and even if it did, A) would still not be descriptively correct.

The evidence does not indicate the test results were below the national average. It's saying that the number of graduates who got their plumbing certification is below the national average.

If the pass rate for a state's bar is 70%, and if a law school has a rate of 20%, that's probably a good indicator of the quality of instruction there.

Art History major here, artists back then would often do this. It's almost like an easter egg thing in modern day movies. It's like Stan Lee having a cameo in all the Marvel movies.

Some artists would even paint themselves in paintings depicting biblical stories, as if they were witnessing the biblical event taking place in front of themselves.

I've linked an article for u talking about this phenomenon:

https://www.cnn.com/style/article/artists-self-portraits-artsy/index.html

I don't remember a question where D) could be the right answer.

But here is a situation where D) would be correct:

Let's say an argument concludes with a sentence. The substance of this sentence could be very abstract and general. So to make sure the reader would understand what's going on, the author could use a specific example to illustrate or clarify what the sentence means.

e.g.

blablabla.... Therefore, all vehicles should not be driven within this park. D) would be like "oh btw, by vehicles, I meant to refer only those with an internal combustion engine. Bicycles do not count as vehicles in this context."

"the recent increase" u have mentioned is actually referring to "the last 100 years" in line 9-10. But A) says "in the last few years." It's only recent relative to the last 1000 years.

Argument structure:

you have to repeat an instruction many times for it to be effective

M Inc. has this trick that delivers this initial instruction makes one feels as if all the subsequent instructions are repeated many times

=======

all the subsequent instructions delivered after this initial instruction are super effective

But this "initial instruction" is no different from all the subsequent instructions in nature. So in order to make the person feel like all the subsequent instructions are repeated many times, this initial instruction first needs to be repeated many times.

As a result, the conclusion does not really follow from the premises.

Question #2 in this LR section also involves this concept of "unique."

The question stem specifically asks you to "call into question EVIDENCE offered in support of the conclusion above." So it is asking u to question the premise. The weakening question stems we typically see ask u to weaken the ARGUMENT. So the task is a bit different here.

The argument is assuming that there is a causal relationship between the road being closed and the doubling of the bear population. And the argument then use this to show that closing the road is a viable way to increase bear population. But we have to show that the assumption that this causal relationship actually exist first.

E) shows that closing road does not increase the total population of the valley, merely that some bears from other parts of the valley migrated to the other part.

having a reliable record does not mean the record would indicate the airline is safe.

You are right that there is a possibility that major airlines could still be safer than most low-fair airlines. But this is merely a possibility. There is also the possibility that it is not safer than most low-fair airlines. Which possibility are we going to pick????

This is a flaw question, C) points out this uncertainty.

The conclusion of this stimulus is the last sentence, "what her friend told her must be incorrect".

her friends told her that "Daisy -> / edible". To say a conditional claim is incorrect, u are basically negating the whole statement. And if u remember the lesson on negation, it's to keep the sufficient condition and slap a negation sign in front of the necessary condition.

So her friend's claim becomes "Daisy & edible". Basically there are edible daisies.

And since there are some instances of edible daisies, this statement can be also written as "Daisy -some- edible."

(1) write to give pleasure -> / tell 100% truth

If this above statement were true:

book popular (assume high sales figure) -> give people pleasure -> / tell 100% truth (the last two parts were psuedo-linked by statement (1))

======= sub-conclusion

sales figure = truthfulness of the book

======= main conclusion

write to give pleasure & tell 100% truth

But the part being psuedo-linked does not actually connect. So we need to say: give people pleasure -> the author intended that pleasure, allowing us to use the conditional chain given by statement (1).

book popular (assume high sales figure) -> give people pleasure -> the author intended to give pleasure -> / tell 100% truth

A play can be popular several centuries from now even if it does not continue to be performed regularly during the intervening time.

To negate, u keep the sufficient and slap a negation sign in front of the necessary condition.

Here,

Popular after several centuries -> continuously played during the intervening time

Negation:

popular after several centuries & / continuously played during the intervening time.

I think you might have gotten it the other way around.

I don't think well necessarily implies best. But best definitely implies well.

well is a lower bar than best. If u meet this lower bar, u can still not meet the high bar for best. On the other hand, if u met this higher bar for best, u definitely exceeded this lower bar for well.

well is like good enough, or decent.

E.g.

My score is decent vs. I got the best score.

We were only told what's true for fiction & nonfiction individually.

Both A) and B) are talking about the books as a whole set. Which we have no info on.

C) ignores one possibility: it could also be requested manuscript after careful consideration.

Sapir–Whorf hypothesis

a hypothesis, first advanced by Edward Sapir in 1929 and subsequently developed by Benjamin Whorf, that the structure of a language determines a native speaker's perception and categorization of experience.

If you watched the 2016 movie Arrival, the scientists played by Amy Adams mentions this theory.

Around 2:50 in this clip linked.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JX8qOoyxt8s&ab_channel=videobiker

My take on #16 B).

I think the problem might have something to do with the last bit of AC B). "including that conducted by Belcher and Hu, which focus on using peptides to bind different crystals together."

1)

focus vs. focuses

here, the author used "focus" instead of the word "focuses" (singular). So there are more than one project with a focus on binding two crystals together???? But the passage only mentions one.

2)

"binding peptides with crystals vs. binding two crystals together with a single peptide"

A large portion of the passage talks about Belcher and Hu's study on using peptide to bind to semiconductor materials so the peptide could direct the crystal growth of the semiconductor. So, in these studies mentioned with detail in the passage, they only tried to bind peptide with crystals. And it's only in the very last bit of the final passage where the author mentions "they are also designing new peptides that bind to two different crystals at once ('to bind different crystals together')."

But B) says the two researchers' project's focus is on this thing that is only mentioned very briefly in the end. I mean the emphasis seems just wrong. Why spent a large portion of the passage talking about binding peptides with crystals and then call something u throw in in the final paragraph briefly (almost as extra information) as the focus?

3)

Most importantly, on a meta level, the author spends more paragraph talking about the research project of these two researchers.

I think B) would be a more accurate description had the author talked about more in detail about projects besides Belcher and Hu's.

The passage actually mentions other research projects. "Much current research is aimed at harnessing DNA to this end, ..."

Premise 1: Fruits provide a lot of Vitamins we need.

Premise 2: Fruits have a lot of fibre we need.

Premise 3: Fruits have a lot of antioxidants that we need.

=======

Conclusion: Fruits are god for u.

Premise 1, 2, & 3 have no relationship with each other, but each independently supports the conclusion.