Sign in

Manhattan RC notes III

Definitely not in the right mood of studying now… but that’s not what I can choose, I guess

Quick Review (Current time 9:30 a.m.)

  • There are different ways of reading short and long passages, yet there are still much the time.

Before learning how to fly, leap, and before learning how to leap, jump.

Real quick practice:

Because the framers of the United States Constitution (written in 1787) believed that protecting property rights relating to inventions would encourage the new nation’s economic growth, they gave Congress — the national legislature — a constitutional mandate to grant patents for inventions. The resulting patent system has served as a model for those in other nations. Recently, however, scholars have questioned whether the American system helped achieve the framers’ goals. These scholars have contended that from 1794 to roughly 1830, American inventors were unable to enforce property rights because judges were “antipatent” and routinely invalidated patents for arbitrary reasons. This argument is based partly on examination of court decisions in cases where patent holders (“patentees”) brought suit alleging infringement of their patent rights. In the 1820s, for instance, 75 percent of verdicts were decided against the patentee. The proportion of verdicts for the patentee began to increase in the 1830s, suggesting to thes scholars that judicial attitudes toward patent rights began shifting then.

Not all patent disputes in the early nineteenth century were litigated, however, and litigated cases were not drawn randomly from the population of disputes. Therefore the rate of verdicts in favor of patentees cannot be used by itself to gauge changes in judicial attitudes or enforceability of patent rights. If early judicial decisions were prejudiced against patentees, one might expect that subsequent courts — allegedly more supportive of patent rights — would reject the former legal precedents. But pre-1830 cases have been cited as frequently as later decisions, and they continue to be cited today, suggesting that the early decisions, many of which clearly declared that patent rights were a just recompense for inventive ingenuity, provided a lasting foundation for patent law. The proportion of judicial decisions in favor of patentees began to increase during the 1830s because of a change in the underlying population of cases brought to trial. This change was partly due to an 1836 revision to the patent system: an examination procedure, still in use today, was instituted in which each application is scrutinized for its adherence to patent law. Previously, patents were automatically granted upon payment of a $30 fee.

I believe this passage counts for a long one. So let’s apply to Skeletal Sketch method

P1:

framers: pro rights → eco growth, patents

scholar: doubt, 1794–1830 judge anti-pat (court decis)

1830: verdic patentee % , judge attitud shift

P2

author: % X, cited freq

℗ reason: case (1836 revis) adher to law

  • Point last

Chapter 5 — 7 Strategies

  1. Genernal questions: after making the Headline List or Skeletal Sketch and identifying the main Point in the paragraph, instead of reviewing (NO!) the passage once again, you should drive into “main idea” question and try to eliminate “impossible (never mentioned and too-close-to-detail)” options.

— Time: 11:00 a.m. — Already feel like my brain cells are perishing…

Chapter 6 — Question analysis

reminder: different types of questions should apply to different methods

General question: “main idea,” “organization of the passage,” “the tone of the passage (author)”

Specific quesiton: (1) Lookup (2) Inference (don’t infer!) (3) Minor types (tone, CR question…)

Types of wrong answer choices: Traps!

  • Out of scope: may be true in real life, but in the passage it is unwarranted and can’t find support

— the next day 3:30 p.m. —

Characteristic of right anwers

  • the use of synonyms: not use the exact word in the passage

— a few days later 11:30 p.m. —

Be aware of… (games Gmat usually plays)

  • author’s mood: impartial (disinterest, neutral)/ positive (optimistic)/ negative (pessimistic) [Eg: “X substantially bolster Y” → neutral]

Stay motivated, cuz making progress is thrilling