Critical Reasoning

When a company refuses to allow other companies to produce patented technology, the consumer invariably loses. The company that holds the patent can charge exorbitant prices because there is no direct competition. When the patent expires, other companies are free to manufacture the technology and prices fall. Companies should therefore allow other manufacturers to license patented technology.

The argument above presupposes which of the following?


Companies cannot find legal ways to produce technology similar to patented technology.

Companies have an obligation to act in the best interest of the consumer.
Too many patents are granted to companies that are unwilling to share them.
The consumer can tell the difference between patented technology and inferior imitations.
Consumers care more about price than about quality.

IMO A

Companies cannot find legal ways to produce technology similar to patented technology.

Yep, it should be assumed otherwise there is no need of licencing patent.

Companies have an obligation to act in the best interest of the consumer.

No, this can not be assumed, as the best interest does not only mean price it means quality as well which will come through restricted access as otherwise no one will invest in Rand D.
Too many patents are granted to companies that are unwilling to share them.
Number of patents have no bearing here.
The consumer can tell the difference between patented technology and inferior imitations.
Not relevant
Consumers care more about price than about quality.
Not relevant.

B for me.

IMO - B

B IMO.

A

Cannot decide between A and B. Can anyone brake down these two choices for me please