|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 26 Nov 2009
Posts: 180
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
49
[0], given: 5
|
Re: CR-Manhattan-Patented technology [#permalink]
 23 Jan 2010, 11:38
Thanks mike
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Status: Prepping for the last time....
Joined: 28 May 2010
Posts: 202
Location: Australia
Concentration: Technology, Strategy
GMAT 1: 630 Q47 V29
GPA: 3.2
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
8
[0], given: 21
|
Re: CR-Manhattan-Patented technology [#permalink]
15 Sep 2011, 18:31
Good question.. A is wrong as it doesn't form a bridge between the premise that consumer is at loss and the conclusion that the companies should allow others to use patented technology.
_________________
Two great challenges: 1. Guts to Fail and 2. Fear to Succeed
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Status: 2000 posts! I don't know whether I should feel great or sad about it! LOL
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 1746
Location: Peru
Schools: Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, MIT & HKS (Government)
WE 1: Economic research
WE 2: Banking
WE 3: Government: Foreign Trade and SMEs
Followers: 49
Kudos [?]:
150
[0], given: 108
|
Re: CR-Manhattan-Patented technology [#permalink]
15 Sep 2011, 19:28
+1 B
_________________
"Life’s battle doesn’t always go to stronger or faster men; but sooner or later the man who wins is the one who thinks he can."
My Integrated Reasoning Logbook / Diary: my-ir-logbook-diary-133264.html
Find out what's new at GMAT Club - latest features and updates
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 01 Jun 2011
Posts: 176
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
10
[0], given: 6
|
Re: CR-Manhattan-Patented technology [#permalink]
15 Sep 2011, 22:59
A
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 12 Oct 2011
Posts: 283
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
13
[0], given: 110
|
Re: When a company refuses to allow other companies to produce [#permalink]
28 Dec 2011, 08:31
Good question. Fell for A but now realize that B is the correct answer. Thanks.
_________________
Consider KUDOS if you feel the effort's worth it
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 12 Oct 2011
Posts: 136
GMAT 1: 700 Q48 V37
GMAT 2: 720 Q48 V40
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
37
[0], given: 23
|
Re: When a company refuses to allow other companies to produce [#permalink]
30 Dec 2011, 10:30
B is the only assumption that is really tied to the conclusion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 15 Mar 2010
Posts: 16
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
Re: When a company refuses to allow other companies to produce [#permalink]
30 Dec 2011, 12:45
BN1989 wrote: B is the only assumption that is really tied to the conclusion. I went for A too but on second thoughts B sounds an equal contender as well. The only spec of doubt I have on B is that how can we assume that falling prices due to more usage of patented technology act as a precursor to the "best interest" of the consumer. How can we assume what the best interest of the consumer is when nothing is hinted about the same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 17 Jul 2011
Posts: 93
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 1
|
Re: When a company refuses to allow other companies to produce [#permalink]
07 Jan 2012, 22:33
B
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Status: Enjoying the GMAT journey....
Joined: 26 Aug 2011
Posts: 730
Location: India
GMAT 1: 620 Q49 V24
Followers: 46
Kudos [?]:
214
[0], given: 261
|
Re: When a company refuses to allow other companies to produce [#permalink]
09 Jan 2012, 10:08
+ 1 B d logical negative of B weakens the conclusion(in this case d last sentence).
_________________
Fire the final bullet only when you are constantly hitting the Bull's eye, till then KEEP PRACTICING.
A WAY TO INCREASE FROM QUANT 35-40 TO 47 : a-way-to-increase-from-q35-40-to-q-138750.html
Q 47/48 To Q 50 + the-final-climb-quest-for-q-50-from-q47-129441.html#p1064367
Three good RC strategies three-different-strategies-for-attacking-rc-127287.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 14 Oct 2005
Posts: 9
Location: India
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 3
|
Re: When a company refuses to allow other companies to produce [#permalink]
09 Jan 2012, 10:30
i still dont get it..i opted for A here..coz if other companies can produce it legally, the whole point of this argument goes for a toss..i mean there will be no more monopoly and consumers are happy coz of low prices..
I ill go with A
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 13 Aug 2010
Posts: 318
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
4
[0], given: 1
|
Re: When a company refuses to allow other companies to produce [#permalink]
10 Jan 2012, 01:47
+1 for B
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 98
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
16
[0], given: 22
|
Re: When a company refuses to allow other companies to produce [#permalink]
10 Jan 2012, 02:17
I got A, but still B is also not wrong.... I am still confused,
_________________
Kudos if any of my post helps you !!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 12 Oct 2011
Posts: 283
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
13
[0], given: 110
|
Re: When a company refuses to allow other companies to produce [#permalink]
10 Jan 2012, 21:39
Apoorva81 wrote: i still dont get it..i opted for A here..coz if other companies can produce it legally, the whole point of this argument goes for a toss..i mean there will be no more monopoly and consumers are happy coz of low prices..
I ill go with A Even I opted for A here but I think B makes more sense as the underlying assumption. The reason is simple: If a company does not care about its consumers and is concerned only with profits, then it would as well patent the technology for a long time and let the consumer suffer because of the high prices. However, in order to avoid the suffering on the part of its consumers, the company does not actually do so. If we assume that a company has no obligation at all to any consumer whatsoever, then the company need not act in the best interests of the consumer. Then, the company may charge exorbitant prices for its patented product. Now, the conclusion says that other manufacturers should be allowed to license patented technology. Ask yourself this question: if a company does not care about its consumers, why is the author asking that other companies be allowed to license patented technology? In short, a company has an obligation towards its consumers. That is why, for the best interests of its consumers, the company should allow other manufacturers to license patented technology so that the prices fall. Hope this helps.
_________________
Consider KUDOS if you feel the effort's worth it
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Posts: 58
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
10
[0], given: 18
|
Re: When a company refuses to allow other companies to produce [#permalink]
05 Feb 2012, 07:04
nitya34 wrote: When a company refuses to allow other companies to produce patented technology, the consumer invariably loses. The company that holds the patent can charge exorbitant prices because there is no direct competition. When the patent expires, other companies are free to manufacture the technology and prices fall. Companies should therefore allow other manufacturers to license patented technology. The argument above presupposes which of the following? (A) Companies cannot find legal ways to produce technology similar to patented technology. (B) Companies have an obligation to act in the best interest of the consumer. (C) Too many patents are granted to companies that are unwilling to share them. (D) The consumer can tell the difference between patented technology and inferior imitations. (E) Consumers care more about price than about quality. conclusion : companies should allow other manufacturers to license patented technology. premise : consumers loses because companies holding patent charge in-exorbitant prices in absence of direct competition. premise : price fall when patent expires. after going thru the options I narrowed it down to A and B as other options seem out of scope. D& E talks abt consumers preferences, while C talks abt no of patent, again irrelevant to conclusion. negating A : companies can find legal ways to produce tech. similar to patent. This rules out the possibility tht there is absence of direct competition, thus company is getting higher price becoz of its prod rather thn monopoly in mkt. thsu conclusion falls apart. similarly negating B : companies do not have an obligation to serve in best interest of customer. so company holding patent can charge higher price and it should not share its patent. again conclusion falls apart. really close btw A n B .... only thing tht gives edge to B is tht A talks abt similar technology not exactly the same patent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 18 Dec 2011
Posts: 105
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
3
[0], given: 113
|
Re: When a company refuses to allow other companies to produce [#permalink]
17 Feb 2012, 15:19
"patent expires, other companies are free to manufacture the technology and prices fall". Does this not imply that since the revenue the companies will make using the technology will decrease once the patient expires, so the companies can rather give license (get money our of licensing) and share the revenue over the period of time and maintain their competitive edge. Hence long term benefit is achieved. I picked A : 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 28 Apr 2011
Posts: 188
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
3
[0], given: 6
|
Re: When a company refuses to allow other companies to produce [#permalink]
04 Apr 2012, 23:48
IMO B......
why give priority to consumer than to profit?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 17 Sep 2011
Posts: 28
Location: United States
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
10
[0], given: 2
|
Re: When a company refuses to allow other companies to produce [#permalink]
09 May 2012, 03:43
nice explanation by mysterio.. i also think it to be A but after going thru explanations ...somehow i agree with B ... but still not very clear,, 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Affiliations: UWC
Joined: 09 May 2012
Posts: 403
Location: India
GMAT 1: 620 Q42 V33
GMAT 2: 680 Q44 V38
GPA: 3.43
WE: Engineering (Entertainment and Sports)
Followers: 16
Kudos [?]:
101
[0], given: 100
|
Re: When a company refuses to allow other companies to produce [#permalink]
10 May 2012, 10:09
Companies should therefore allow other manufacturers to license patented technology. WHY?
BECAUSE: When a company refuses to allow other companies to produce patented technology, the consumer invariably loses.
AND NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND
Ultimately, the effect is that the consumer loses.
B work with this causal relationship.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 30 Sep 2009
Posts: 101
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
12
[0], given: 66
|
Re: When a company refuses to allow other companies to produce [#permalink]
16 May 2012, 04:38
(A) Companies cannot find legal ways to produce technology similar to patented technology.
(B) Companies have an obligation to act in the best interest of the consumer.
Which is correct A or B ???
I tried negating the assumptions to check which is the correct answer
(A) Companies can find legal ways to produce technology similar to patented technology.Companies should therefore allow other manufacturers to license patented technology.
Here if companies can find illegal ways then there is no need for companies to license patent technology.
(B) Companies do not have an obligation to act in the best interest of the consumer.Companies should therefore allow other manufacturers to license patented technology.
if companies do not have any obligation then there is no need for companies to license as they will be at loss....
So B
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 17 May 2012
Posts: 17
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 2
|
Re: When a company refuses to allow other companies to produce [#permalink]
29 May 2012, 11:10
mysterio wrote: nitya34 wrote: When a company refuses to allow other companies to produce patented technology, the consumer invariably loses. The company that holds the patent can charge exorbitant prices because there is no direct competition. When the patent expires, other companies are free to manufacture the technology and prices fall. Companies should therefore allow other manufacturers to license patented technology. The argument above presupposes which of the following? (A) Companies cannot find legal ways to produce technology similar to patented technology. (B) Companies have an obligation to act in the best interest of the consumer. (C) Too many patents are granted to companies that are unwilling to share them. (D) The consumer can tell the difference between patented technology and inferior imitations. (E) Consumers care more about price than about quality. conclusion : companies should allow other manufacturers to license patented technology. premise : consumers loses because companies holding patent charge in-exorbitant prices in absence of direct competition. premise : price fall when patent expires. after going thru the options I narrowed it down to A and B as other options seem out of scope. D& E talks abt consumers preferences, while C talks abt no of patent, again irrelevant to conclusion. negating A : companies can find legal ways to produce tech. similar to patent. This rules out the possibility tht there is absence of direct competition, thus company is getting higher price becoz of its prod rather thn monopoly in mkt. thsu conclusion falls apart. similarly negating B : companies do not have an obligation to serve in best interest of customer. so company holding patent can charge higher price and it should not share its patent. again conclusion falls apart. really close btw A n B .... only thing tht gives edge to B is tht A talks abt similar technology not exactly the same patent. Mysterio, I agree that 'similar' is the key in the option A which makes option B stronger than A.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: When a company refuses to allow other companies to produce
[#permalink]
29 May 2012, 11:10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Vercules, Legendaddy, noboru, Marcab, metallicafan, rajeevrks27, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, souvik101990, doe007, MacFauz, PTK, carcass, kissthegmat, Narenn
|
close
