Even though most universities retain the royalties from faculty member

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.


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).


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).


(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).


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).


(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!