#15 - Concept Reference, Must Be True

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

The correct answer choice is (A).

Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice.

Answer choice (B):

Answer choice (C):

Answer choice (D):

Answer choice (E):

This explanation is still in progress. Please post any questions below!

[miriamson07]

Hi,

I interpreted the question stem incorrectly. I thought that "the theory that copyright and other intellectual property rights can be construed as logical extensions of the right to own concrete, tangible objects" would necessarily mean that the theory is valid. Thus, I chose the answer that I thought described what the author thinks needs to be true for the theory to be valid. (It turns out that even with my incorrect interpretation, the answer I chose wouldn't hold because I read the answer choice incorrectly, but that is besides the point).

Now, I'm guessing that it was a stretch to say that the above quoted part necessarily means that the theory is valid. But, it still makes sense to me that it should necessarily mean the theory is valid. After all, if a theory is a logical extension of an existing right, wouldn't that mean that the theory is valid?

Please help me see how I'm thinking about this incorrectly. Thank you!

[Dana D]

Hey Miriam,

We don't actually need to determine if the theory is valid for this question, we're just asked to restate what the passage itself says. Here, the question is referring to lines (5) to just before line (10). The passage explicitly states that this view depends on the assumption that every copyright work can be manifested in a physical form.

So we don't need to figure out if that is possible, or if this view point is valid, we just need to be able to identify the specific reference in the passage and the answer choice that best matches it, which here is answer choice (A).

hope that helps!

[bilalali]

Hi,


I interpreted the question stem incorrectly. I thought that "the theory that copyright and other intellectual property rights can be construed as logical extensions of the right to own concrete, tangible objects" would necessarily mean that the theory is valid. Thus, I chose the answer that I thought described what the author thinks needs to be true for the theory to be valid. (It turns out that even with my incorrect interpretation, the answer I chose wouldn't hold because I read the answer choice incorrectly, but that is besides the point).

Now, I'm guessing that it was a stretch to say that the above quoted part necessarily means that the theory is valid. But, it still makes sense to me that it should necessarily mean the theory is valid. After all, if a theory is a logical extension of an existing right, wouldn't that mean that the theory is valid?

Please help me see how I'm thinking about this incorrectly. Thank you!

Hey! Totally get where you're coming from — it's a really easy trap to fall into on LSAT logical reasoning.

The key thing is this: just because a theory is described as a “logical extension” of an existing right (like property ownership) doesn’t automatically mean it’s valid. It just means it's based on that prior idea — but the test wants you to look at what must be true based on the text, not what seems valid based on phrasing.

It’s like saying, “My idea is a logical extension of X,” but the author may not fully agree with the foundation (X) in the first place. The test is asking you to stay strict with what’s stated, not assumed.

I had to rework how I read those too — getting better at it came down to practicing with examples that explain these subtle distinctions. I found a few resources that helped break it down for me.
You can read more here if you're into how structure matters in logical reasoning — even though it's a concrete example (literally), the thought process is surprisingly similar.

Hope that helps clarify the logic jump!

[bilalali]

Hi,

I interpreted the question stem incorrectly. I thought that "the theory that copyright and other intellectual property rights can be construed as logical extensions of the right to own concrete, tangible objects" would necessarily mean that the theory is valid. Thus, I chose the answer that I thought described what the author thinks needs to be true for the theory to be valid. (It turns out that even with my incorrect interpretation, the answer I chose wouldn't hold because I read the answer choice incorrectly, but that is besides the point).

Now, I'm guessing that it was a stretch to say that the above quoted part necessarily means that the theory is valid. But, it still makes sense to me that it should necessarily mean the theory is valid. After all, if a theory is a logical extension of an existing right, wouldn't that mean that the theory is valid?

Please help me see how I'm thinking about this incorrectly. Thank you!

Hey, great question — and honestly, you're not alone. A lot of people interpret "logical extension" as something that has to be true or automatically valid, but on the LSAT (or in critical reasoning generally), it doesn't quite work like that.

“Logical extension” in this context just means the theory flows from or is built on the earlier right (like owning tangible objects). But that doesn’t guarantee it's valid — it just tells you where the idea came from. Whether it holds up still depends on the assumptions or reasoning that follow. So the LSAT isn't asking you to judge whether the extension is “right,” only what must be true if the argument itself is accepted.

Think of it like this: you could say, “This policy is a logical extension of previous laws,” but that doesn’t mean it’s a good policy or that the previous laws were even sound to begin with.

This kind of nuance tripped me up a lot too, especially when I was rushing. What helped me most was training myself to pause and ask, “What’s actually stated vs. what am I assuming?”

Also funny side note — I’ve been working on some totally different real-world problem solving (concrete construction stuff of all things), and it’s wild how often the same logic principles apply. You can check out how structure and planning really matter here too:
https://concretecontractorstxlubbock.com/
Not LSAT-related, but the thinking crossover is weirdly helpful.

Hope that clears it up a bit!