The development of new inventions is promoted by the

EXPLANATION FROM POWER PREP

Proponents of intellectual property rights, such as the right to patent new inventions, argue that the best way to ensure continued innovation is to maximize the property holders’ (patent holders’) right to benefit financially from their developments. The stimulus takes this argument one step further and makes the extreme claim that original development will cease altogether if there is no financial incentive for inventing new products. For this conclusion to be possible, it must be assumed that nothing other than financial incentive could motivate original development and invention. Answer choice (A) is correct because it shows that financial incentive is singularly necessary.

Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. As with any correct answer choice to an Assumption question, this answer choice must pass the Assumption Negation Test. Once negated, the correct answer choice will invalidate the argument. For answer choice (A), if the stimulus is negated it states that financial reward is not the only effective incentive in motivating people to develop new inventions, and the conclusion of the stimulus is no longer correct. That is, some people will continue to engage in original development even if patent rights are not granted because these people will not need a financial incentive to produce new inventions. Because answer choice (A) shows the absolute necessity of financial incentive, it is the correct answer.

Answer choice (B): Some proponents of intellectual property rights are concerned about the relationship between inventors and manufacturers. But the argument in the stimulus is not contingent upon the nature of that relationship. The conclusion is that without patent rights and the financial incentives that they provide no new inventions will be developed. Thus, the conclusion does not depend upon the assumption that inventors make more total profit than manufacturers.

Answer choice (C): This answer choice suggests that the economic benefit to an inventor of obtaining patent rights must be significantly greater than the associated cost. Presumably, this is necessary to justify the investment of time and energy in obtaining a patent. But the conclusion is drawn from the complete absence of financial incentive. Knowledge about the cost of applying for patent rights does not allow for an evaluation of whether the lack of financial incentive would cause original development to cease.

Answer choice (D): The stimulus is not dependent upon the restriction of patent rights to those products which are sufficiently unique. Very similar products may provide enough financial incentive to promote continued innovation and the stimulus only predicts what will occur if there is no financial incentive present.

Answer choice (E): The duration of patent rights and the development cost of new inventions are not directly linked to the financial incentive mentioned in the stimulus. Therefore, the relationship between these two factors need not be known in order to successfully draw the conclusion. Furthermore, if this answer choice is negated and the length of patent rights for inventions that were inexpensive to develop was longer than the length of patent rights for expensive inventions, the conclusion would be unaffected.