Because a manufacturer secures a patent for a pharmaceutical compound, the patent does not bar competitors from producing a chemical like it, as long as those chemicals have at least one structural difference with the patented compound.
1- Because a manufacturer secures a patent for a pharmaceutical compound, the patent does not bar competitors from producing a chemical like it, as long as those chemicals have at least one structural difference with the patented compound
2- That a manufacturer has secured a patent for one of its pharmaceutical compounds do not bar competitors from producing similar chemicals and having at least one important difference from the patented compound
3- A patent for one of a manufacturer's pharmaceutical compounds does not bar competitors from producing a chemical like the patented compound, as long as the two differ structurally in at least one way
4- When securing a patent for one of a manufacturer's pharmaceutical compounds, competitors are not barred from the production of chemicals such as the patented compound, provided that there is at least one structural difference
5- Even if a manufacturer secures a patent for one of its pharmaceutical compounds, this does not bar competitors from the production of a chemical such as the patented compound, but having at least one structural difference from it
SC-Need expert advice to crack such questions
This topic has expert replies
- AnuragRatna
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 37
- Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 2:39 am
- Location: Bangalore
- GMATGuruNY
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 15539
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pm
- Location: New York, NY
- Thanked: 13060 times
- Followed by:1906 members
- GMAT Score:790
A; The patent does not bar competitors from securing a chemical like it.AnuragRatna wrote:Because a manufacturer secures a patent for a pharmaceutical compound, the patent does not bar competitors from producing a chemical like it, as long as those chemicals have at least one structural difference with the patented compound.
1- Because a manufacturer secures a patent for a pharmaceutical compound, the patent does not bar competitors from producing a chemical like it, as long as those chemicals have at least one structural difference with the patented compound
2- That a manufacturer has secured a patent for one of its pharmaceutical compounds do not bar competitors from producing similar chemicals and having at least one important difference from the patented compound
3- A patent for one of a manufacturer's pharmaceutical compounds does not bar competitors from producing a chemical like the patented compound, as long as the two differ structurally in at least one way
4- When securing a patent for one of a manufacturer's pharmaceutical compounds, competitors are not barred from the production of chemicals such as the patented compound, provided that there is at least one structural difference
5- Even if a manufacturer secures a patent for one of its pharmaceutical compounds, this does not bar competitors from the production of a chemical such as the patented compound, but having at least one structural difference from it
Here, it seems to refer to the patent, implying that a CHEMICAL is like THE PATENT -- an illogical comparison.
Eliminate A.
A that-clause that serves as the subject of a sentence is considered SINGULAR.
In B, do (plural) does not agree with that a manufacturer has secured a patent (singular).
Eliminate B.
D: When securing a patent for one of a manufacturer's pharmaceutical compounds, competitors...
Here, securing seems to refer to competitors, implying that COMPETITORS are SECURING a patent for one of A MANUFACTURER'S compounds.
Not the intended meaning.
Competitors do not secure a patent for the compound of another manufacturer.
Eliminate D.
In E, this lacks a clear referent.
Eliminate E.
The correct answer is C.
Private tutor exclusively for the GMAT and GRE, with over 20 years of experience.
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.
As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.
For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.
As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.
For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
-
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 37
- Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2014 10:40 am
- Thanked: 1 times
Hi GGNY
I think I haven't ever seen a "the two differ" construction
Can you give some examples that illustrate when this construction is correct
I think I haven't ever seen a "the two differ" construction
Can you give some examples that illustrate when this construction is correct