abhimehrotra wrote:
Option 2 suggests that since more likely, it is possible and since universities take royalties on inventions, Faculty should too.
Option 4 suggests that since it is marketable, it would be good to take royalties.
However Option 5 seems strong option.
Since strengthening is about indication, I was not able to reject the option choices 2 and 4 strongly.
First, let’s consider the logic of the passage:
- Universities retain royalties from inventions.
- Faculty members retain royalties from books and articles.
- Therefore, the author concludes that faculty members should retain royalties from educational computer software (ECS).
But the passage seems to be missing something. It establishes two categories of royalties: those from inventions (that belong to universities) and those from books and articles (that belong to faculty members). But then it concludes that faculty members should retain royalties from ECS, even though ECS doesn’t fit neatly into either of these categories.
The question then asks which of the answer choices would, if added to the passage, make the conclusion more reasonably drawn. With that in mind, let’s take a look at the answer choices.
Quote:
(A) Royalties from inventions are higher than royalties from educational software programs.
Even if royalties from inventions are higher than royalties from educational software programs (ESP), we still don’t know how royalties from ECS compare to royalties from books and articles. So, we have no reason to conclude that royalties from ECS should be treated as royalties from books and articles. Eliminate (A).
Quote:
(B) Faculty members are more likely to produce educational software programs than inventions.
Just because faculty members are more likely to produce ESP does not mean that ESP should be treated as books and articles. You could say that faculty members are more likely to produce books and articles than inventions, so ESP should be treated as books and articles. But we would have to assume this with no basis in the passage. And it’s possible that while the likelihood of producing ESP is higher than that of producing inventions, the likelihood of producing ESP is more similar to the likelihood of producing inventions than it is to the likelihood of producing books and articles. So, we can eliminate (B).
Quote:
(C) Inventions bring more prestige to universities than do books and articles.
(C) merely provides information on the relative prestige of inventions and books/articles. We don’t know anything about the prestige brought by ECS. Eliminate (C).
Quote:
(D) In the experience of most universities, educational software programs are more marketable than are books and articles.
ESP could very well be more marketable than books and articles, but that definitely does not give us reason to treat ESP as we treat books and articles. Eliminate (D).
Quote:
(E) In terms of the criteria used to award royalties, educational software programs are more nearly comparable to books and articles than to inventions.
(E) indicates that the criteria used to award ESP royalties is more like the criteria used to award book/article royalties than the criteria used to award invention royalties. For that reason, it makes sense to treat ECS royalties as we treat book/article royalties. This is exactly what the author of the passage concludes, so (E) makes the conclusion more reasonably drawn. Therefore, it is the best answer choice.
I hope that helps!
_________________
GMAT/GRE/EA tutors @
www.gmatninja.com (
hiring!) |
YouTube |
Articles |
IG Beginners' Guides:
RC |
CR |
SC |
Complete Resource Compilations:
RC |
CR |
SC YouTube LIVE webinars:
all videos by topic +
24-hour marathon for UkraineQuestion Explanation Collections:
RC |
CR |
SC