Instruct: Given a premise, retrieve hypotheses that are entailed by the premise.
Query: Okay, and is your argument that we find and hold against their retrospective because there is some, at least plausible basis should so argument, to say that there can be a causal connection between the retrospective extension and some benefit that can be traced to those particular works through the retrospective extension, like dissemination? Is that your argument?
The speaker is trying to clarify someone else's position. 
The defendants may think there was bias involved
People benefit by having their rights preserved.
The argument is only advancing because of the Governments new parallel case. 
The problem with the extension only extending to subsisting copyrights is the only issue with it at the moment.
there was prior findings
This could be explored more deeply.
The question was based on the precedents 
The copyright clause encourages progress in science and arts 
The speaker's opinions are supported by research
The passage mentions more than one argument. 
Justice O’Conner thinks the rule favors stimulating former new works 
this is one of several cases to be made
Longer term benefits come if you don't apply the existing copyright.
The information extracted can be used in other technologies.
The expected monetary value supports fringe economic theories.
The statement might have been given as an answer to a question.
one of the reasons customer return to your business is that they think your business offers a deal
A retaliation was anticipated.
Using a prior date is not necessarily an error.
The person wants to be able to use works not currently in the public domain as works in the public domain.
The extensions were considered by the Court
The person understands the argument correctly
The person does not understand the argument 
the argument is a strong argument 