PT157.S4.P4.Q24

SECTION 1 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5

PASSAGE 2

Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12

PASSAGE 3

Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19

PASSAGE 4

Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

SECTION 2 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25

SECTION 3 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25

SECTION 4 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7

PASSAGE 2

Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14

PASSAGE 3

Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22

PASSAGE 4

Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

Not supported, because the author believes algorithms shouldn’t be patentable on the ground that they are not products of invention. The author explains that a principle that wind design can be harnessed to make energy isn’t patentable, because it’s not a product of invention. The author then states that “on similar grounds,” software algorithms shouldn’t be patentable. “On similar grounds” implies the author thinks software algorithms, like laws of nature, aren’t products of invention.

Not supported. The author believes copyright protection for code should be given only for “expressions of algorithms in an encoded form.” But there’s no mention of the algorithm needing to be previously unused in order to warrant protection.

Not supported, because the author never suggests anyone has an incorrect view about the severity of the problem of copycat programming. The author does believe proponents of software patents are wrong about the need for patent protection, but this isn’t because the author thinks copycat programming is less serious a problem. It’s because he thinks existing copyright law, with some slight modification, is adequate to address the problem.

The author never mentions literary works, anything that is synonymous with literary works, or any principles that we have reason to believe should apply to literary works. If you’re thinking that literary works deserve copyright protection, (E) still isn’t supported, because the author believes the encoding of algorithms should also get copyright protection. So we’d have no reason to think encoding of algorithms is not analogous to writing a literary work.