Stronger patent laws are needed to protect inventions from being pirat

Answer is E....

C is based on the fact that Manufacturers would only be encouraged to do investments if the patent laws are intact! This isnt the case which is stated in the stem! Hence not valid.

C and E both seem attractive.

For C:
If A then B (Stronger patent laws then more investment)
If NOT A then NOT B (If weak patent laws then no investment) - NOT always CORRECT

Hence C is out.

Choice E is correct.

if there are strong patents, then manufacturers will be encouraged to invest
P -> I

C) manufacturers will decrease investment unless patents are strong
I' [not decrease investment] -> P
this may not be correct. so E is the answer.

a couple of examples of unless statements and their conditional diagrams.
Unless a person studies, he or she will not receive an A+.
A+ -> Study

There can be no peace without justice.
Peace -> Justice

You cant justify C using the stimulus. Manufacturers may have no option but to invent new products to ensure survival.

E can definately be justified : strong patent laws can stimulate productivity by enticing the producers.

Because I think no answer above explains clear and simple enough, I will give mine:

C: There's no certainty that manufacturers will decrease investment. Their investment may not rise, but it may equal to that of previous time. The premise only said " ... manufacturers would be encouraged to invest ..."

E: Correct

Stronger patent laws are needed to protect inventions from being pirated. With that protection, manufacturers would be encouraged to invest in the development of new products and technologies. Such investment frequently results in an increase in a manufacturer’s productivity.
Which of the following conclusions can most properly be drawn from the information above?

(A) Stronger patent laws tend to benefit financial institutions as well as manufacturers.
(B) Increased productivity in manufacturing is likely to be accompanied by the creation of more manufacturing jobs.
(C) Manufacturers will decrease investment in the development of new products and technologies unless there are stronger patent laws.
(D) The weakness of current patent laws has been a cause of economic recession.
(E) Stronger patent laws would stimulate improvements in productivity for many manufacturers.


I chose A on the following lines.

Scope of the Argument:

1. Investments in Patents
2. Productivity
3. Patent Laws

According to the scopes, options B, C, and D become out of scope. I am unable to choose between A & E.

i do not why you have doubts about A. A is clearly NOT stated in the argument at all. If you dissect the argument

1) Stronger patent laws are needed to protect inventions from being pirated. to prevent frauds


2) With that protection, manufacturers would be encouraged to invest in the development of new products and technologies. is clear I guess


3) Such investment frequently results in an increase in a manufacturers productivity. something leads to something else. is clear

Hope this helps

gmat1393 aragon VeritasKarishma nightblade354

Let me know if below understanding and PoE is correct.


This is an inference question, so there may be no conclusion present.



stronger patent laws = inventions not pirated.
this will in turn result in:
manufacturers shall be encouraged to develop new products and technologies.
this will further lead to:
Increase in productivity of manufacturer.


Not necessary. may be manufacturers have enough cash in their reservoir to fund new innovations and they might not take loans.


Not really, what if new innovation is done by automating existing machinery.


We are not sure what will happen when there are no strong patent laws.


Way out of scope!!


Lovely mild language: would simulate. Yes, the prompt does give a hint to infer this choice.

Which of the following conclusions can most properly be drawn from the information above?


we cannot say what will happen if the patent laws are not strong enough.May decrease or stay the same.
Opposite and strong(decrease)

this remains and can be the conclusion.
E is the winner

Stronger patent laws are needed to protect inventions from being pirated. With that protection, manufacturers would be encouraged to invest in the development of new products and technologies. Such investment frequently results in an increase in a manufacturer’s productivity.

Which of the following conclusions can most properly be drawn from the information above?


(A) Stronger patent laws tend to benefit financial institutions as well as manufacturers.
Left field answer. We don’t know anything about how patent laws would benefit financial institutions.

(B) Increased productivity in manufacturing is likely to be accompanied by the creation of more manufacturing jobs.
No…increased productivity would lead us to think that fewer jobs (potentially) might be needed. Why? Efficiency is up so more is getting done given the existing human capital. So there’s no reason to think more people would be hired…in a vacuum of course.

(C) Manufacturers will decrease investment in the development of new products and technologies unless there are stronger patent laws.
We don’t know that they will decrease investment…this choice makes the implicit assumption that the introduction of patient laws are the only reason why firms invest in the development of new products and technologies.

(D) The weakness of current patent laws has been a cause of economic recession.
Left field. No link to recessions in the passage.

(E) Stronger patent laws would stimulate improvements in productivity for many manufacturers.
Correct

Strong patent laws --> Piracy removed --> Investment will increase --> Productivity increase
Therefore, Strong patent laws --> Productivity increase