CR Question

This topic has expert replies
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 9:31 pm
Thanked: 3 times

CR Question

by skyline77 » Thu Oct 23, 2008 6:41 am
Dear all,

I can't see the logic of the OA answer. Anyone wants to give it a try?

Bill: The newspaper discontinued Dr. Andrews' weekly humor column because the editor said that he had plagiarized the work of another humorist. Dr. Andrews explained, however, that much of the column's material was from stories submitted by readers and that he had no idea that the offending items had been written by another humorist. Since his use of the items was innocent, Dr. Andrews' column should be reinstated.

Kathy: That's not the point. No one accused Dr. Andrews of violating another author's copyright. The offense was that he passed off material as his own that he had not actually written. And so it was plagiarism even though the owner of the copyrighted material wrote to the newspaper to say that he did not think that Dr. Andrews had intentionally stolen from him.

Q. Which one of the following principles best justifies Bill's defense of Dr. Andrews?

(A) A writer can quote without attribution if it appears that the material is in common circulation.
(B) An author is entitled to quote without attribution if the copyright owner will later grant permission.
(C) A humorist can retell anecdotes submitted by readers only after doing a thorough search for the source.
(D) An author has an absolute right to quote hers or his previously published work without need of attribution.
(E) Literary works that are no longer under copyright protection can be freely quoted by any writer.
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

Legendary Member
Posts: 541
Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 6:44 pm
Location: UK
Thanked: 21 times
Followed by:3 members
GMAT Score:680

by rohangupta83 » Thu Oct 23, 2008 7:00 am
imo A

Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 9:31 pm
Thanked: 3 times

by skyline77 » Thu Oct 23, 2008 7:45 am
rohangupta83 wrote:imo A
I thought that as well. But the answer is 'B'. Cannot really figure out why.

Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 10:16 am

by SYim » Thu Oct 23, 2008 8:29 am
I think it is B because of the last sentence of what Kathy says: "And so it was plagiarism even though the owner of the copyrighted material wrote to the newspaper to say that he did not think that Dr. Andrews had intentionally stolen from him."

Kelly is saying that it is still plagiarism because of the action whether the owner of the copyrighted material says it's okay to do so or not.

In that sense, Bill can argue that the author (Dr. Andrews) can quote without attribution if the copyright owner is okay with this later.

Hope this helps-

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 300
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2013 2:26 am

by khanshainur » Thu May 12, 2016 11:53 am
I agree with you guys. I also think that the right answer is A