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?
- It restates the argument's conclusion in different words.
- It is a concession to the critics' point about derivative works.
- It is the final conclusion the argument arrives at.
- It is a premise that supplies the missing link needed to support the argument's main conclusion.
- 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
- Which one of the following can be properly inferred from these statements?
- The question type just described is best identified as which one of the following?
- Which one of the following can be properly inferred from these premises?
- Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the authors' conclusion?
- Which one of the following can be validly inferred from the two conditionals above?
- The reasoning in the argument is flawed in that the argument
- The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument
- Which one of the following most accurately describes the relationship the statement establ