Patented technology | Hard Assumption question, 700-800

I will post the Official answer after a while. I simply cannot believe that the Official answer is correct.

The question is from Manhattan GMAT

ChessWriter wrote: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?

(A) Companies cannot find legal ways to produce technology similar to patented technology.
(B) Companies have an obligation to act in the best interest of the consumer.
(C) Too many patents are granted to companies that are unwilling to share them.
(D) The consumer can tell the difference between patented technology and inferior imitations.
(E) Consumers care more about price than about quality.

The premise is about X: The CONSUMER loses when a company refuses to allow other companies to produce patented technology.
The conclusion is about Y: COMPANIES should therefore allow other manufacturers to license patented technology.

The assumption is that X is linked to Y: that, because the CONSUMER loses, COMPANIES should change what they are doing -- even though these companies can charge EXORBITANT prices. Why should a company that can charge exorbitant prices change its business model? What's bad for the consumer clearly is GOOD for the company.

Answer choice B exposes the assumption:

For the conclusion here to be valid, it MUST BE TRUE THAT companies have an obligation to act in the best interest of the consumer.

If this answer choice is negated -- if companies DO NOT have an obligation to act in the best interest of the consumer -- then they have no reason to license patented technology, invalidating the conclusion of the passage.

The correct answer is B.

GMATGuruNY wrote:

ChessWriter wrote: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?

(A) Companies cannot find legal ways to produce technology similar to patented technology.
(B) Companies have an obligation to act in the best interest of the consumer.
(C) Too many patents are granted to companies that are unwilling to share them.
(D) The consumer can tell the difference between patented technology and inferior imitations.
(E) Consumers care more about price than about quality.

The premise is about X: The CONSUMER loses when a company refuses to allow other companies to produce patented technology.
The conclusion is about Y: COMPANIES should therefore allow other manufacturers to license patented technology.

The assumption is that X is linked to Y: that, because the CONSUMER loses, COMPANIES should change what they are doing -- even though these companies can charge EXORBITANT prices. Why should a company that can charge exorbitant prices change its business model? What's bad for the consumer clearly is GOOD for the company.

Answer choice B exposes the assumption:

For the conclusion here to be valid, it MUST BE TRUE THAT companies have an obligation to act in the best interest of the consumer.

If this answer choice is negated -- if companies DO NOT have an obligation to act in the best interest of the consumer -- then they have no reason to license patented technology, invalidating the conclusion of the passage.

The correct answer is B.

Thanks Mitch, that is indeed the Correct Answer. It makes a lot of sense now

Below are my negations of all the answer options. I have negated all statements mainly for my own practise. But, I am still confused between options A and B

Although, I do understand why B is an underlying assumption for the stimulus to be true, I still do not get why it is a stronger contender for being the right answer than Option A.

If companies can indeed find legal ways to produce technology similiar to patented technology, then there would be no point forcing them to do as the stimulus suggests. So, Isn't Option A a stronger contender for being the right answer than Option B.

(A) Companies cannot find legal ways to produce technology similar to patented technology.
Negation: Companies CAN find legal ways to produce technology similar to patented technology.

(B) Companies have an obligation to act in the best interest of the consumer.
Negation: Companies DO NOT have an obligation to act in the best interest of the consumer.

(C) Too many patents are granted to companies that are unwilling to share them.
Negation: Too FEW patents are granted to companies that are unwilling to share them.

(D) The consumer can tell the difference between patented technology and inferior imitations.
Negation: The consumer can NOT ALWAYS tell the difference between patented technology and inferior imitations.

(E) Consumers care more about price than about quality.
Negation: Consumers DON"T care more about price than about quality.
[/quote] tell the difference between patented technology and inferior imitations.

(E) Consumers care more about price than about quality.
Consumers DON"T care more about price than about quality.
[/quote]

ChessWriter wrote:Below are my negations of all the answer options. I have negated all statements mainly for my own practise. But, I am still confused between options A and B

Although, I do understand why B is an underlying assumption for the stimulus to be true, I still do not get why it is a stronger contender for being the right answer than Option A.

If companies can indeed find legal ways to produce technology similiar to patented technology, then there would be no point forcing them to do as the stimulus suggests. So, Isn't Option A a stronger contender for being the right answer than Option B.

(A) Companies cannot find legal ways to produce technology similar to patented technology.
Negation: Companies CAN find legal ways to produce technology similar to patented technology.

The negation of A -- that companies can find legal ways to produce similar technology -- contradicts the PREMISE:
The company that holds the patent can charge exorbitant prices because THERE IS NO DIRECT COMPETITION.
When the correct answer is negated, it cannot contradict the premise.

Answer choice A simply REAFFIRMS the premise: if companies cannot find legal ways to produce similar technology, then THERE IS NO DIRECT COMPETITION.
The correct answer -- the ASSUMPTION -- is what must be true in order to LINK this premise to the conclusion.

Thanks Mitch. That was very helpful. I loved your explanation about option A.

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?

(A) Companies cannot find legal ways to produce technology similar to patented technology.
(B) Companies have an obligation to act in the best interest of the consumer.
(C) Too many patents are granted to companies that are unwilling to share them.
(D) The consumer can tell the difference between patented technology and inferior imitations.
(E) Consumers care more about price than about quality.


Gmat guru is right. The OA is B. I got it in less than 1 min... Hurray!!!

Sorry for the excitement but assumption questions is my biggest weakness in the overall GMAT...