- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8950
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Fri Jul 15, 2016 11:13 am
#27226
Passage A Overview:
This passage begins with an introduction about the IIPA and the role it plays in establishing trade sanctions for countries that fail to meet U.S. standards for intellectual property protection. The author then states that the report contains controversial criticisms that fall into three categories: (1) countries that do not police internet materials in the same way as the U.S., (2) countries whose copyright laws are extremely similar to those in the U.S. (this is deemed “hypocritical”), and/or (3) efforts that support national education and cultural initiatives. The final paragraph puts these criticisms into perspePctive, with the author stating that the criticisms are far too numerous and far too wide-ranging to hold any real significance or to indicate failure on the criticized countries’ part.
Passage B Overview:
This passage begins with a clear assertion of the author’s main point: the IIPA report, while at times overly complicated, is accurate and invaluable (lines 48-50). The author then attempts to support this view by examining the potential harms of copyright infringement (loss of motivation to create new copyrightable works), particularly with respect to digital media such as the internet. The author claims that the IIPA report is justified in each of the criticisms leveled at foreign countries, as each of the criticized countries has in some way jeopardized a copyright holder’s right to protection.
Passage Comparison:
The main point of contention between these two passages is over the value of the IIPA report and the criticisms it raises. The author of passage A asserts that the report is overly critical and that countries that are criticized need not feel as though they have done anything wrong, whereas the author of passage B clearly disagrees with that point and believes the report to be invaluable in its criticisms and the resultant sanctions (although he or she would admit that the report occasionally “strays into minutiae” [lines 48-49]). Keep in mind that the two authors agree that copyright infringement is a problem, and they both acknowledge the IIPA report as important with respect to foreign relations/policy; they simply disagree over the accuracy and usefulness of the data in the report.
This passage begins with an introduction about the IIPA and the role it plays in establishing trade sanctions for countries that fail to meet U.S. standards for intellectual property protection. The author then states that the report contains controversial criticisms that fall into three categories: (1) countries that do not police internet materials in the same way as the U.S., (2) countries whose copyright laws are extremely similar to those in the U.S. (this is deemed “hypocritical”), and/or (3) efforts that support national education and cultural initiatives. The final paragraph puts these criticisms into perspePctive, with the author stating that the criticisms are far too numerous and far too wide-ranging to hold any real significance or to indicate failure on the criticized countries’ part.
Passage B Overview:
This passage begins with a clear assertion of the author’s main point: the IIPA report, while at times overly complicated, is accurate and invaluable (lines 48-50). The author then attempts to support this view by examining the potential harms of copyright infringement (loss of motivation to create new copyrightable works), particularly with respect to digital media such as the internet. The author claims that the IIPA report is justified in each of the criticisms leveled at foreign countries, as each of the criticized countries has in some way jeopardized a copyright holder’s right to protection.
Passage Comparison:
The main point of contention between these two passages is over the value of the IIPA report and the criticisms it raises. The author of passage A asserts that the report is overly critical and that countries that are criticized need not feel as though they have done anything wrong, whereas the author of passage B clearly disagrees with that point and believes the report to be invaluable in its criticisms and the resultant sanctions (although he or she would admit that the report occasionally “strays into minutiae” [lines 48-49]). Keep in mind that the two authors agree that copyright infringement is a problem, and they both acknowledge the IIPA report as important with respect to foreign relations/policy; they simply disagree over the accuracy and usefulness of the data in the report.
