kartikkmadan wrote:
hey GMATNinja! could you please add your two cents to the question. I am unable to understand the heart of this argument
The question asks us to cast doubt on the viability of a plan, so the heart of the argument will be that plan itself.
What is the plan? Administrators at Logos university plan to sell any patents they acquire to corporations, and then to use that money to fund improvements in undergraduate teaching.
We get some additional facts about the patents that will be sold: they "result from government-sponsored university research," and a new law is responsible for allowing the universities to own the patents.
With all of that in mind, use POE to cast doubt on the administrators' plan. Which answer choice hints that selling these patents isn't a great way to fund improvements in undergraduate teaching?
Quote:
(A) Profit-making corporations interested in developing products based on patents held by universities are likely to try to serve as exclusive sponsors of ongoing university research projects.
(A) misses the mark. The administrators' goal is to fund one thing in particular: "programs to improve undergraduate teaching." (A) implies that corporations serve another function: they sponsor ongoing university research products. These functions aren't necessarily at odds -- it's possible for administrators to sell patents to corporations, use that money to fund undergraduate teaching improvements, AND get sponsored for further research. Seems like a pretty good deal, and the administrators' plan makes sense!
Eliminate (A).
Quote:
(B) Corporate sponsors of research in university facilities are entitled to tax credits under new federal tax-code guidelines.
(B) tells us about an incentive for corporations to sponsor research at universities.
That's nice, but what does it have to do with the administrators' plan? It really doesn't have an impact at all. The plan is to sell patents from
government-sponsored research to corporations. (B) talks about another kind of research altogether -- corporate-sponsored research. If (B) is true, it doesn't cast doubt on the plan to sell patents to corporations.
(B) is out.
Quote:
(C) Research scientists at Logos University have few or no teaching responsibilities and participate little if at all in the undergraduate programs in their field.
The plan calls for the
funds from selling patents to go toward undergraduate teaching, but there's no need for the research scientists
themselves to be involved with undergraduate students. The plan would work just as well if those exact researchers had nothing to do with undergraduate programs.
Eliminate (C).
Quote:
(D) Government-sponsored research conducted at Logos University for the most part duplicates research already completed by several profit-making corporations.
The plan is to sell patents resulting from government-sponsored research. But how many such patents will Logos University actually get? And how valuable would those patents really be?
(D) tells us that the university might not even get that many patents. After all, if several profit-making corporations have already done the same research, surely those companies would have patented any cool new inventions that came of that research. And if the patents are still up for grabs, then that must mean that other for-profit companies already decided the inventions weren't that valuable.
If Logos University can only expect a few crappy patents from the new law, then selling these patents won't provide many funds for undergraduate teaching.
(D) casts doubt on the viability of the plan, so keep (D).
Quote:
(E) Logos University is unlikely to attract corporate sponsorship of its scientific research
Again, the new law talks about government-sponsored research, not corporate-sponsored research. (E) doesn't tell us anything about whether the administrators' plan to sell patents from government-sponsored research will succeed.
(E) is out, and (D) is the correct answer.
I hope that helps!