Problem: General Olson, you say that the functional equivalent of an unlimited time would be a violation, but that's precisely the argument that's being made by petitioners here, that a limited time which is extendable is the functionable, functional equivalent of an unlimited time, a limited time that 10 years from now can be extended, and then extended again, and extended again. Why -- their argument is precisely that, a limited time doesn't mean anything unless it means, once you have established the limit for works that have been created under that limit, that's the end.

Based on the paragraph above can we conclude that "The unlimited time can be extended after ten years."?

A: Yes


Problem: I think there is a privilege here, and I think the privilege sometimes gets drawn in what appears to be an ad hoc manner. But my job is to find where to put the line down in this case. To traipse into the area of why they selectively used a quote as opposed to not using other things that were said I think is to get on a very slippery slope. It really almost precipitates a bias line of questioning, and I'm not going to allow it. I am trying to narrowly draw this.

Based on the paragraph above can we conclude that "my job is to find where to put the line down and in this case I will allow it"?

A: No


Problem: Yes, Jim. I've thought a lot about that particular question, and I see our greatest national strength coming from what we stand for in the world. I see it as a question of values. It is a great tribute to our founders that 224 years later this nation is now looked to by the peoples on every other continent and the peoples from every part of this earth as a kind of model for what their future could be.

Based on the paragraph above can we conclude that "The values in questions are good values"?

A:
It's impossible to say