BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

<700+> Find the assumption

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:44 am
Thanked: 3 times
Followed by:1 members

<700+> Find the assumption

by voodoo_child » Mon May 16, 2011 11:01 am
A university should not be entitled to patent the inventions of its faculty members. Universities, as guarantors of intellectual freedom, should encourage the free flow of ideas and the general dissemination of knowledge. Yet a university that retains the right to patent the inventions of its faculty members has a motive to suppress information about a potentially valuable discovery until the patent for it has been secured. Clearly, suppressing information concerning such discoveries is incompatible with the university's obligation to promote the free flow of ideas.
19. Which one of the following is an assumption that the argument makes?
(A) Universities are the only institutions that have an obligation to guarantee intellectual freedom.
(B) Most inventions by university faculty members would be profitable if patented.
(C) Publication of reports on research is the only practical way to disseminate information concerning new discoveries.
(D) Universities that have a motive to suppress information concerning discoveries by their faculty members will occasionally act on that motive
(E) If the inventions of a university faculty member are not patented by that university, then they will be patented by the faculty member instead

OA D

Can anyone first tell me what's the premise, conclusion and assumption ?

Thanks
Voodoo
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1255
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 2:08 pm
Location: St. Louis
Thanked: 312 times
Followed by:90 members

by Tani » Mon May 16, 2011 1:13 pm
Conclusion: Universities shouldn't be allowed to patent

Evidence: Universities are obliged to promote the free flow of ideas
The right to patent provides a motive to suppress information
Suppressing information violates the obligation to promote the free flow of ideas.

Assumption: The university will act on the motive to suppress. Answer D If you deny D, say the universities won't suppress information on their discoveries, there is no reason to prohibit patents.
Tani Wolff
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 234
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 5:02 am
Thanked: 5 times
Followed by:3 members

by champmag » Fri May 20, 2011 3:04 am
+1 for D.

Time: 1min 40 secs.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 242
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 8:49 am
Location: Delhi
Thanked: 6 times

by ranjeet75 » Thu Dec 01, 2011 9:19 pm
What about the word "occasionally" in choice D. If we negate, the word "occasionally" limit the scope and sentence says that universities will not occasionally act on the motive. It means that universities sometimes act on the motive.

Is it right?

[quote]Conclusion: Universities shouldn't be allowed to patent

Evidence: Universities are obliged to promote the free flow of ideas
The right to patent provides a motive to suppress information
Suppressing information violates the obligation to promote the free flow of ideas.

Assumption: The university will act on the motive to suppress. Answer D If you deny D, say the universities won't suppress information on their discoveries, there is no reason to prohibit patents. [/quote]
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1255
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 2:08 pm
Location: St. Louis
Thanked: 312 times
Followed by:90 members

by Tani » Fri Dec 02, 2011 8:25 am
The opposite of occasionally is "not occasionally". That does not mean sometimes. It means that they are not going to act on that motive.
Tani Wolff
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 138
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 10:07 am
Thanked: 19 times
Followed by:3 members

by GmatVerbal » Fri Dec 02, 2011 11:28 am
The argument is made with following reasoning

universities retain right to patent ==(1)=> motive to suppress information ==(2)==> so they shouldn't patent(conclusion);

link(2) has a huge gap in the reasoning: motive to suppress information ===> [so they patent with that motive] ===> so they shouldn't patent;

what is implied in the original argument is: universities patent with the motive to supress information. That is a assumption;
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 296
Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 5:10 am
Location: Vietnam
Thanked: 10 times
Followed by:5 members

by tuanquang269 » Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:47 am
A university should not be entitled to patent the inventions of its faculty members. Universities, as guarantors of intellectual freedom, should encourage the free flow of ideas and the general dissemination of knowledge. Yet a university
Premises: U should not be entitled to patent the inventions of its members

U should encourage the opening IDEAS and KNOWLEDGE

BUT: U (that retains the right to patent the inventions of its faculty members) has a motive to suppress information about a potentially valuable discovery until the patent for it has been secured.

Conclusion: Suppressing information concerning such discoveries IS INCOMPATIBLE with the university's obligation to promote the free flow of ideas.

19. Which one of the following is an assumption that the argument makes?
(A) Universities are the only institutions that have an obligation to guarantee intellectual freedom. => try to negate it. U are not only institutions that have an obligation to guarantee intellectual freedom => neutral affects to conclusion
(B) Most inventions by university faculty members would be profitable if patented. => out of scope
(C) Publication of reports on research is the only practical way to disseminate information concerning new discoveries. => irrelevant to the conclusion
(D) Universities that have a motive to suppress information concerning discoveries by their faculty members will occasionally act on that motive => if this University always act on that motive, the conclusion will break
(E) If the inventions of a university faculty member are not patented by that university, then they will be patented by the faculty member instead => irrelevant to the university
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1