medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning

Many critics of the current copyright system argue that long protection periods stifle innovation. They claim that if works were in the public domain sooner, more derivatives would be created. Claim [1]: However, the possibility of long-term profit is what incentivizes corporations to fund risky creative ventures in the first place. Claim [2]: Without this incentive, many of the works that critics wish to see in the public domain would never be produced. Thus, shortening the protection period could actually result in fewer creative works overall.

What is the logical role of Claim [2] in the argument?

  1. It restates the argument's conclusion in different words.
  2. It is a concession to the critics' point about derivative works.
  3. It is the final conclusion the argument arrives at.
  4. It is a premise that supplies the missing link needed to support the argument's main conclusion.
  5. It accurately notes that incentives drive production, but it is offered to argue that copyright terms should be lengthened further.

Sign up free to see the explanation and track your rank →

More LSAT Logical Reasoning practice

KomFi: Test Prep Made Easy

KomFi: Test Prep Made Easy — free adaptive practice for GMAT, GRE, SAT, ACT, National Real Estate Exam, Investment Banking, and finance with full explanations.

KomFi Academy is free GMAT prep and personalized GMAT help built as a training platform: 75,000+ practice questions, 26,500+ flashcards, on-demand video lectures, podcasts, and 4K slide decks. Flagship tracks: Free GMAT Prep, Free GMAT Resources, National Real Estate Exam Prep, Investment Banking Prep, Finance Prep, GRE, SAT, ACT, LSAT, MCAT, Financial Accounting, Private Equity, Private Credit, and Quantitative Finance.

Free GMAT Prep & Personalized GMAT Help

What's inside

Topics

View pricing · Read testimonials