What Are "Applying to New Contexts" Questions?
Applying to New Contexts questions test your ability to transfer principles and rules from a copyright law passage to a completely new scenario not mentioned in the text. These questions assess whether you truly understand the underlying logic of legal theories like the tangible-object theory, rather than just memorizing passage content.
Core Challenge: You must identify the relevant principle or theory from the passage, understand its essential components and logic, then systematically apply it to a new situation to determine what the theory would predict or require. This demands deep comprehension of cause-effect relationships and logical structures.
Common Question Stems
Recognize These Question Formats:
- "Suppose [new scenario]. According to the tangible-object theory as described in the passage, which of the following would be true?"
- "Which of the following scenarios would be most problematic for the theory described in the passage?"
- "Based on the passage, the author would most likely hold that [new situation] would..."
- "The principles outlined in the passage would support which of the following claims about [new scenario]?"
- "If the tangible-object theory were applied to [new situation], it would most likely result in..."
Why Copyright Passages Generate These Questions
Copyright law passages present abstract theories about intellectual property, ownership, and rights. The LSAT tests whether you can apply these theories predictively—a crucial skill for law school, where you'll constantly apply legal principles to new fact patterns.
| Passage Scenario | New Context Question Scenario | Required Skill |
|---|---|---|
| Poet describes poetic form orally; friend writes it down and copyrights it | Inventor describes invention orally; engineer builds prototype using own materials | Recognize parallel structure: idea originator vs. tangible object creator |
| Land ownership includes mineral rights below and air rights above | What rights does a manuscript creator retain after selling the physical document? | Apply analogy principle to new property type |
| Tangible-object theory requires physical manifestation | Can live improvised jazz performances be copyrighted under this theory? | Test theory's requirements against new case |
| Creator retains right to copy for profit after selling original | Does photographer retain reproduction rights after selling original print? | Extend principle to analogous situation |
The Five-Step Application Framework
Successfully answering application questions requires a systematic approach that ensures you apply the correct principle accurately:
Step-by-Step Application Method
1Identify the Relevant Principle or Theory
Determine which concept from the passage the question asks you to apply. Common principles in copyright passages:
- Tangible-object theory: Copyright protects physical manifestations, not abstract ideas
- Creator = object maker: Whoever creates the tangible object owns the copyright
- Retained rights: Original creators keep certain rights even after transferring ownership
- Physical manifestation requirement: Copyrightable works must exist in some tangible form
2Extract the Essential Components
Break the principle down into its essential elements. For tangible-object theory:
- There must be a tangible object (physical manifestation)
- Someone must create that tangible object
- The creator of the tangible object holds copyright
- This applies even if someone else originated the idea
Missing any component leads to misapplication.
3Map the New Scenario to the Principle
Create a systematic mapping between the new scenario's elements and the principle's components:
Poet-Friend Example (Passage):
- Poet = idea originator
- Friend = tangible object creator (writes it down)
- Written description = tangible object
- Result under theory: Friend owns copyright (not poet)
Inventor-Engineer Scenario (New Context):
- Inventor = idea originator
- Engineer = tangible object creator (builds prototype)
- Prototype = tangible object
- Prediction: Engineer owns copyright (not inventor)
4Apply the Logic Systematically
Follow the theory's logic to its conclusion in the new scenario, even if the result seems counterintuitive or unfair. The LSAT tests whether you can apply principles correctly, not whether you agree with the outcomes.
Common error: Imposing your own sense of fairness rather than following the theory's logic
5Evaluate Answer Choices Against Your Prediction
Before looking at answers, predict what the theory would require or conclude. Then find the answer that matches your prediction. This prevents you from being swayed by plausible-sounding wrong answers.
Pro Strategy: The passage often includes an example (like poet-friend) that illustrates the principle in action. Use this as your template for the new scenario. If you understand why the theory produces a certain result in the passage example, you can predict the result in the new scenario by finding the parallel structure.
Worked Example 1: The Inventor-Engineer Scenario
Passage Background: The Poet-Friend Example
According to the tangible-object theory of copyright, creating a tangible object from materials one owns makes one the owner of that object, with all the rights that ownership entails. However, consider a poet who describes an innovative poetic form to a friend. Suppose the friend immediately writes down the poet's description and copyrights it. According to the tangible-object theory, the creator of the tangible object—in this case, the written description—is not the poet but the friend. There would seem to be no ground for the poet's claiming copyright unless the poet can be said to already own the ideas expressed in the work, which is the very supposition the tangible-object theory seeks to avoid.
New Context Question
Suppose an inventor describes an innovative idea for an invention to an engineer, who volunteers to draft specifications for a prototype and then produces the prototype using the engineer's own materials. Which one of the following statements would apply to this case under the tangible-object theory of intellectual property, as described in the passage?
Complete Step-by-Step Solution
1Identify the Relevant Principle
The question explicitly asks about "the tangible-object theory of intellectual property, as described in the passage." The key principle: The creator of the tangible object owns the copyright, even if someone else originated the idea.
2Extract Essential Components from Passage Example
Poet-Friend Structure:
- Poet has an idea (innovative poetic form)
- Poet describes it orally (no tangible object created by poet)
- Friend writes it down using friend's materials (creates tangible object)
- Result: Friend owns copyright (not poet), because friend created the tangible object
3Map New Scenario to Principle
Inventor-Engineer Structure:
- Inventor has an idea (innovative invention)
- Inventor describes it orally (no tangible object created by inventor)
- Engineer builds prototype using engineer's materials (creates tangible object)
- Prediction: Engineer owns copyright (not inventor), because engineer created the tangible object
4Note the Parallel Structure
The scenarios are structurally identical:
- Poet ↔ Inventor (idea originator)
- Friend ↔ Engineer (tangible object creator)
- Written description ↔ Prototype (tangible object)
- Friend's paper ↔ Engineer's materials (resources used)
Since the structures match perfectly, the tangible-object theory would produce the same result: the person who created the tangible object (engineer) owns the intellectual property.
5Answer Choice Analysis
(A) CORRECT: "Only the engineer is entitled to claim the invention as intellectual property." This perfectly matches the theory's logic. Just as the friend (not the poet) owned the copyright because the friend created the tangible written description, the engineer (not the inventor) owns the intellectual property because the engineer created the tangible prototype. The word "only" is key—under this theory, the idea originator has no claim.
(B) INCORRECT: This reverses the theory's logic. The tangible-object theory specifically does NOT protect idea originators who don't create tangible objects. The passage explicitly states this is the theory's problem.
(C) INCORRECT: The theory doesn't allow for shared ownership in this scenario. It's binary: whoever created the tangible object owns the copyright. Both can't be entitled.
(D) INCORRECT: The theory makes no mention of "reasonable compensation" as a condition. This answer imports fairness considerations not present in the theory. Don't impose your own sense of justice—apply the theory as described.
(E) INCORRECT: Like (D), this introduces profit-sharing not mentioned in the passage. The tangible-object theory is about ownership based on who created the physical object, not about financial arrangements.
Key Insight: The correct answer seems unfair (why should the engineer get all rights when the inventor had the idea?), but that's precisely the passage's point—the tangible-object theory produces counterintuitive results. Application questions test your ability to follow the theory's logic, not your sense of fairness.
Worked Example 2: Testing Theory Limitations
Passage Background: Physical Manifestation Requirement
The tangible-object theory of copyright rests on the assumption that every copyrightable work can be manifested in some physical form. While this account seems plausible for copyrightable entities that do have enduring tangible forms, it cannot accommodate the standard assumption that such evanescent things as live broadcasts of sporting events can be copyrighted. For the tangible-object theory to be adequate, theorists would need to explain how an inherently fleeting phenomenon can constitute a tangible object worthy of copyright protection.
New Context Question
Based on the passage, which of the following would be most problematic for the tangible-object theory to explain?
Detailed Solution Analysis
1Identify What Makes Something "Problematic"
The passage states that the theory "cannot accommodate" live broadcasts because they're "evanescent" (fleeting, temporary). What's problematic is when something should be copyrightable but doesn't exist in a tangible form.
2Extract the Theory's Requirement
The tangible-object theory requires that copyrightable works exist in "some physical form." Things that are:
- Enduring tangible forms: Manuscripts, sculptures, paintings → NO PROBLEM for the theory
- Evanescent (fleeting): Live performances, broadcasts → PROBLEM for the theory
3Apply the "Evanescent Test" to Each Answer
(A) INCORRECT: A handwritten manuscript is a tangible object with an enduring form. The theory handles this easily—the novelist created a physical manuscript.
(B) INCORRECT: A bronze statue is quintessentially tangible and enduring. This presents no problem for a theory based on tangible objects.
(C) CORRECT: An improvised jazz solo that's never recorded or written down is evanescent—it exists only in the moment of performance, then disappears. This parallels the live broadcast problem mentioned in the passage. There's no tangible object to point to, yet we might think the improvisation should be copyrightable. The theory can't explain how to copyright something with no physical manifestation.
(D) INCORRECT: Digital storage is tangible enough for copyright purposes. The photographs exist in physical form (magnetic patterns on drives, electrical charges in memory). This is not evanescent.
(E) INCORRECT: Source code is written down (or stored digitally), making it a tangible manifestation. The theory handles this without difficulty.
Parallel Structure Recognition:
Passage problem: Live broadcasts are copyrightable but evanescent (no tangible form)
Answer (C) problem: Improvised performances are copyrightable but evanescent (no tangible form)
Same structure = same problem for the theory
Strategy Insight: When a question asks what would be "problematic," look for the answer that recreates the same type of problem the passage identified. Here, the passage flagged evanescent phenomena as problematic. Answer (C) presents another evanescent phenomenon.
Worked Example 3: Applying Retained Rights
Passage Background: Retained Rights Principle
Creating a new and original object from materials that one owns makes one the owner of that object, with all the rights that ownership entails. Just as the purchaser of land owns not just the surface but also the mineral rights below and the air rights above, so too does the creator of an original work own not just the physical object but also the rights associated with it. Among the rights retained by the original producer would be the right to copy the object for profit and the right to use it as a guide for the production of similar or analogous things, even after transferring ownership of the physical object to another party.
New Context Question
Based on the passage, if a composer sells the original handwritten score of a symphony to a museum, which of the following would the composer most likely retain the right to do?
Application Analysis
1Identify the Applicable Principle
The passage describes retained rights—rights the original creator keeps even after selling the physical object. Specifically mentioned:
- "The right to copy the object for profit"
- "The right to use it as a guide for the production of similar or analogous things"
2Understand What's Transferred vs. Retained
Transferred to buyer: Physical object itself (the museum now owns the original handwritten score)
Retained by creator: Rights to reproduce, copy for profit, create similar works
3Apply to the Composer-Museum Scenario
The composer sold the physical score to the museum. The museum now owns that specific piece of paper. But the composer retains the rights mentioned in the passage.
4Evaluate Each Answer
(A) INCORRECT: The museum owns the physical object and can display it. The passage doesn't suggest creators retain control over what buyers do with the physical object itself.
(B) CORRECT: This directly matches "the right to copy the object for profit." Publishing and selling copies of the symphony is exactly what the passage describes as a retained right. The composer can make money from reproductions even though the museum owns the original.
(C) INCORRECT: Once sold, the physical object belongs to the buyer. The passage describes retained rights associated with the work, not the ability to reclaim the physical object.
(D) INCORRECT: The passage mentions no right to share in the profits from owning or displaying the physical object. Retained rights relate to copying and reproduction, not to the museum's use of the original.
(E) INCORRECT: The museum, as owner of the physical score, can sell it. The passage distinguishes between ownership of the physical object (transferred to the museum) and rights to copy/reproduce (retained by the composer).
Critical Distinction: Ownership of the physical object ≠ ownership of reproduction rights. The land analogy in the passage illustrates this: you can own the surface (physical object) while someone else owns mineral rights (associated rights). Here, the museum owns the score (physical), but the composer owns reproduction rights (associated rights).
Common Pitfalls in Application Questions
Pitfall 1: Importing Outside Knowledge
The Error: Using what you know about real copyright law instead of applying the theory as described in the passage
Example: You might know that in reality, inventors retain rights to their inventions. But the question asks what the tangible-object theory as described in the passage would predict.
Solution: Base everything on the passage's description of the theory, even if it contradicts real law or common sense.
Pitfall 2: Choosing "Fair" Over "Correct"
The Error: Selecting what seems fair or just rather than what the theory actually requires
Example: It seems unfair that the engineer gets all rights when the inventor had the idea, so you choose an answer with compensation. But the theory doesn't include compensation provisions.
Solution: The LSAT tests logical application, not ethical judgment. Follow the theory's logic even to counterintuitive conclusions.
Pitfall 3: Incomplete Principle Extraction
The Error: Missing a crucial component of the principle being applied
Example: Remembering that tangible-object theory is about physical objects, but forgetting that it assigns ownership to whoever created the tangible object
Solution: Write out all components of the principle before applying it. Check each component against the new scenario.
Pitfall 4: Surface Similarity Instead of Structural Parallel
The Error: Choosing scenarios that seem topically similar rather than structurally parallel
Example: Thinking any "music" scenario parallels another "music" scenario, when actually the structure (who creates what, using whose materials) matters more than the topic
Solution: Map the roles and relationships (idea originator, object creator, materials provider) rather than matching superficial topics.
Pitfall 5: Overcomplicating the Application
The Error: Adding nuances or conditions not present in the passage's description of the theory
Example: Assuming the tangible-object theory would consider intent, good faith, or collaboration when the passage describes it as purely mechanical (whoever creates the object owns it)
Solution: Apply the theory exactly as described, without adding complexity. If the passage doesn't mention a factor, don't consider it.
Advanced Application Strategies
Strategy 1: The Structural Template Method
Technique: Create a reusable template from the passage example, then populate it with the new scenario's details
Template for Poet-Friend Type Questions:
Role A: _____________ (idea originator)
Role B: _____________ (tangible object creator)
Object: _____________ (tangible manifestation)
Materials: _____________ (whose resources were used)
Prediction: Role B owns copyright (not Role A)
Application to Inventor-Engineer:
Role A: Inventor (idea originator)
Role B: Engineer (tangible object creator)
Object: Prototype (tangible manifestation)
Materials: Engineer's own materials
Prediction: Engineer owns copyright (not Inventor)
Strategy 2: The "What Would Break This?" Test
Technique: For "most problematic" questions, identify what assumptions or requirements the theory makes, then find what violates them
Example: Tangible-object theory assumes physical manifestation exists. What breaks this? Something copyrightable but evanescent (improvised performance never recorded).
Strategy 3: Rights Separation Analysis
Technique: For retained rights questions, clearly separate what's transferred from what's retained
Physical Object Rights (Usually Transferred):
- Possession of the specific item
- Right to display it
- Right to sell it to another party
Reproduction Rights (Usually Retained):
- Right to make copies
- Right to sell copies for profit
- Right to create derivative works
Strategy 4: Pre-Phrase Through Analogy
Technique: Before reading answer choices, complete the analogy
Format: "Passage Example : Passage Result :: New Scenario : [Predicted Result]"
Example: "Poet describes, friend writes : Friend owns :: Inventor describes, engineer builds : [Engineer owns]"
Then find the answer matching your predicted result.
Strategy 5: The Counterintuitive Indicator
Technique: In copyright passages, the "correct" application often seems unfair—that's intentional
Logic: The passage critiques the tangible-object theory precisely because it produces counterintuitive results. Application questions often test whether you'll follow the theory's logic to these counterintuitive conclusions.
Strategy: If an answer seems "too harsh" or "unfair" but matches the theory's logic, it's likely correct. Don't second-guess based on fairness.
Time Management for Application Questions
Target Time: Application questions should take 60-90 seconds. They're more time-consuming than Main Point or Purpose of Reference questions because you must actively work through the application logic.
Efficient Workflow
| Time Block | Activity | Focus |
|---|---|---|
| 0-15 seconds | Read question and identify relevant principle | What theory or concept should I apply? |
| 15-30 seconds | Locate passage example that illustrates the principle | Find the poet-friend example or equivalent |
| 30-50 seconds | Map new scenario to passage example structure | Who's the idea originator? Who's the object creator? |
| 50-70 seconds | Predict the result and evaluate answer choices | What would the theory require or predict? |
| 70-90 seconds | Verify correct answer against principle | Does this match the theory's logic exactly? |
Time-Saving Tip: During your initial passage reading, bracket examples like the poet-friend scenario and note "tangible-object theory example" in the margin. When an application question appears, you can immediately return to the relevant example rather than searching for it, saving 15-20 seconds.
Official LSAT Preparation Resources
Practice applying copyright principles to new contexts using official LSAT materials:
Official LSAC Resources
LSAC Reading Comprehension Guide LSAC Sample RC Questions LawHub Official Practice PlatformRevisionTown Practice Protocol: For each copyright passage, identify the main principle or theory. Then, before looking at questions, create your own "applying to new contexts" question with a scenario that parallels the passage example. This active practice builds the skill of recognizing structural parallels, which is essential for application question mastery.
Frequently Asked Questions
The question stem almost always specifies which principle to apply, either explicitly ("according to the tangible-object theory as described in the passage") or implicitly (by referencing concepts like retained rights or physical manifestation requirements). If unclear, look for clues in the question: mentions of "theory," "principle," or "as described in the passage" guide you to the relevant concept. Additionally, the new scenario will structurally parallel a passage example, so identifying that parallel reveals which principle applies.
Perfect matches are rare. Focus on structural parallels rather than surface similarities. The inventor-engineer scenario doesn't match the poet-friend scenario in topic (inventions vs. poetry), but they share the same structure: Person A originates an idea, Person B creates a tangible manifestation using their own materials. Map the roles and relationships (who does what, using whose resources) rather than requiring identical content. The principle applies to the structure, not the specific subject matter.
No. Actively set aside outside knowledge. The LSAT tests your ability to apply principles AS DESCRIBED IN THE PASSAGE, which may differ from actual copyright law. In fact, the tangible-object theory described in LSAT passages is often presented as problematic or flawed—it's used to test logical reasoning, not to teach real copyright doctrine. Base every answer solely on what the passage states or necessarily implies about the theory. Outside knowledge is not just unhelpful; it's often detrimental.
This is intentional. Copyright passages often critique theories by showing they produce unfair results. The tangible-object theory seems unjust because the person who had the idea gets no rights while the person who merely wrote it down gets everything. Application questions test whether you'll follow the theory's logic to these unfair conclusions or whether you'll let fairness instincts override logical reasoning. The counterintuitive answer is often correct precisely because the passage's point is that the theory produces counterintuitive results.
Create a systematic mapping. For tangible-object theory questions: (1) Identify the idea originator in the new scenario, (2) Identify who created the tangible object, (3) Note whose materials were used, (4) Apply the rule: creator of tangible object owns copyright. If you can trace each element and your conclusion follows the passage's logic, you're applying correctly. Also check: would your answer produce the same type of result (fair or unfair) as the passage example? Consistency in outcomes suggests correct application.
Application questions give you a principle and a new scenario, asking you to determine what the principle requires or predicts in that scenario. Inference questions ask what logically follows from passage statements without introducing new scenarios. Application is more mechanical: extract principle → map to new facts → determine outcome. Inference is more interpretive: what must be true given passage content? Application questions are typically signaled by "suppose," "if," or "based on the theory described in the passage," while inference questions ask "the passage implies" or "the author would most likely agree."
This is risky and usually leads to errors. Without pre-phrasing or mapping, you're vulnerable to plausible-sounding wrong answers that import fairness considerations, reverse the principle's logic, or make the new scenario sound similar without being structurally parallel. The 20-30 seconds spent mapping the new scenario to the passage example saves time by letting you confidently eliminate wrong answers and recognize the correct one immediately. Skipping this step might save 20 seconds but costs you the question.
Apply the theory as described, not as you or the author think it should work. If the question asks "according to the tangible-object theory," apply that theory's logic even if the passage criticizes it. Your answer should reflect what the theory WOULD predict, not what SHOULD happen or what the author RECOMMENDS. The passage's critique is separate from the theory's mechanics. Questions asking "according to the theory" require you to apply the theory's rules; questions asking "the author would most likely hold" require you to reflect the author's critical stance.
Quick Reference: Application Question Checklist
Before Selecting Your Answer, Verify:
- ✓ Have I identified the specific principle or theory the question asks me to apply?
- ✓ Do I understand all essential components of that principle (not just the general idea)?
- ✓ Have I located the passage example that illustrates this principle in action?
- ✓ Can I map the new scenario's elements to the passage example's structure?
- ✓ Have I predicted the outcome before looking at answer choices?
- ✓ Am I applying the principle AS DESCRIBED, not based on outside knowledge or fairness?
- ✓ Does my answer follow the principle's logic, even if the result seems counterintuitive?
- ✓ Have I checked that I'm not importing conditions or nuances not mentioned in the passage?
If you can answer "yes" to all eight, you've correctly applied the principle to the new context.