Last visit was: 18 Nov 2025, 20:19 It is currently 18 Nov 2025, 20:19
Home
GMAT
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Rewards
Chat
My Profile
Close
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
   1   2 
555-605 Level|   Weaken|                                          
User avatar
rickyric395
User avatar
Joined: 07 Mar 2020
Last visit: 17 Nov 2025
Posts: 113
Own Kudos:
100
Given Kudos: 65
GMAT 1: 680 Q49 V34
GMAT 1: 680 Q49 V34
Posts: 113
Kudos: 100
A new law gives ownership of patents—documents providing exclusive rig 18 Aug 2023, 00:29
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja
kartikkmadan
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!
Show more

In option A, law is that universities will gain patent if the university research is gov funded. Now A says that the corps wanted to become exclusive sponsors to research, then the law which awarded patent to universities will not be applicable (possibly corps will be owner of the future patents) then in future universities will have no/few patents to sell. Thus it won't have the money to upgrade teaching infra. [the success of the plan will diminish in future]

Whereas, in option D, since research is duplicated, but it doesn't matter as long as universities have the patent, corps won't be able to use the product made from the patents. This doesn't cast doubt, but strengthen the plan.

GMATNinja KarishmaB please provide your input
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,265
Own Kudos:
76,983
 [2]
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,265
Kudos: 76,983
 [2]
A new law gives ownership of patents—documents providing exclusive rig 18 Aug 2023, 01:06
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
rickyric395
GMATNinja
kartikkmadan
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!

In option A, law is that universities will gain patent if the university research is gov funded. Now A says that the corps wanted to become exclusive sponsors to research, then the law which awarded patent to universities will not be applicable (possibly corps will be owner of the future patents) then in future universities will have no/few patents to sell. Thus it won't have the money to upgrade teaching infra. [the success of the plan will diminish in future]

Whereas, in option D, since research is duplicated, but it doesn't matter as long as universities have the patent, corps won't be able to use the product made from the patents. This doesn't cast doubt, but strengthen the plan.

GMATNinja KarishmaB please provide your input
Show more


Presently, with the new law coming in, the plan is to sell the patents the Univ will get through Govt sponsored research and use the money to improve its programs. On what future terms will the sale happen and how beneficial it will be in future to the Univ is irrelevant to the current plan.
Option (A) says that the Corps buying the patents will likely try to become exclusive sponsors i.e. likely they would be interested in becoming the exclusive sponsors. Will the Univ agree, we don't know. If the Univ agrees, will it be an advantage or a disadvantage to the Univ, we can't say. Hence, option (A) doesn't impact the viability of the plan in any meaningful way. In any case, it is talking about what may happen in the future but it doesn't impact whether the current plan can be implemented or not.

As for option (D), if the Univ research is just duplicating the research already completed by companies, the Univ will get no patents. The companies will already have the patents for that research. Hence the plan may not fly at all. If there are no patents to sell, how will the money come to improve programs. To get patents, the Univ will need to conduct original research so presently, it doesn't look like the Univ's plan will work.
User avatar
scrantonstrangler
User avatar
Joined: 19 Feb 2022
Last visit: 12 Nov 2025
Posts: 117
Own Kudos:
55
Given Kudos: 69
Status:Preparing for the GMAT
Location: India
Schools: ISB '27 INSEAD '26 HEC '26 Fuqua '27 Tuck '27 IESE '27 IIM
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V35
GPA: 3.33
WE:Consulting (Consulting)
Schools: ISB '27 INSEAD '26 HEC '26 Fuqua '27 Tuck '27 IESE '27 IIM
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V35
Posts: 117
Kudos: 55
A new law gives ownership of patents—documents providing exclusive rig 06 May 2024, 05:29
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
noboru
A new law gives ownership of patents—documents providing exclusive right to make and sell an invention—to universities, not the government, when those patents result from government-sponsored university research. Administrators at Logos University plan to sell any patents they acquire to corporations in order to fund programs to improve undergraduate teaching.

Which of the following, if true, would cast most doubt on the viability of the college administrators’ plan described above?

(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.

(B) Corporate sponsors of research in university facilities are entitled to tax credits under new federal tax-code guidelines.

(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.

(D) Government-sponsored research conducted at Logos University for the most part duplicates research already completed by several profit-making corporations.

(E) Logos University is unlikely to attract corporate sponsorship of its scientific research.
Show more



A) Strengthens the conclusion. If profit making corps start investing in university research projects, it would make sense for universities to sell their patents to them. A good arrangement. Eliminate

B) Has no bearing on the argument. Simply states why it is good for corporations to sponsor these projects. We need to weaken the argument that says selling to corporations is good. Eliminate

C) Focuses on research scientists. Their role is done after the patent is created. Eliminate

D) If the research conducted at Logos University is already done by private corps, then they won’t have any incentive to sponsor the same project.

E) This just says the university is unlikely to attract sponsorship for research. The conclusion is selling patents to private corps will attract sponsorship. A weak weakner at best. Eliminate.

Answer is D

Posted from my mobile device
User avatar
Yash_757575757
User avatar
Joined: 28 Jun 2024
Last visit: 23 Aug 2024
Posts: 4
Given Kudos: 9
Posts: 4
Kudos: 0
A new law gives ownership of patents—documents providing exclusive rig 08 Jul 2024, 03:28
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
noboru
A new law gives ownership of patents—documents providing exclusive right to make and sell an invention—to universities, not the government, when those patents result from government-sponsored university research. Administrators at Logos University plan to sell any patents they acquire to corporations in order to fund programs to improve undergraduate teaching.

Which of the following, if true, would cast most doubt on the viability of the college administrators’ plan described above?

(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.

(B) Corporate sponsors of research in university facilities are entitled to tax credits under new federal tax-code guidelines.

(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.

(D) Government-sponsored research conducted at Logos University for the most part duplicates research already completed by several profit-making corporations.

(E) Logos University is unlikely to attract corporate sponsorship of its scientific research.
Show more

According to me, option D makes sense because in the question it is said that administrators at logos university plan to sell any patent acquired by them to corporation in order to fund programs to improve UG teaching.

option D by far is the most logical answer as it sates that government sponsored research for the most part duplicates research already completed by the corporation then why would the university even plan to sell the patent for the knowledge they have for the most part already have. (Sorry, my English isn't my first language).

Posted from my mobile device
avatar
SaurabhPatil20
avatar
Joined: 14 Aug 2021
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 35
Own Kudos:
17
Given Kudos: 106
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1: 595 Q79 V79 DI80
GMAT 1: 410 Q43 V8
GMAT 2: 590 Q48 V25
WE:Analyst (Consulting)
Products:
My Reviews
GMAT Focus 1: 595 Q79 V79 DI80
GMAT 2: 590 Q48 V25
Posts: 35
Kudos: 17
A new law gives ownership of patents—documents providing exclusive rig 08 Dec 2024, 07:11
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
The Plan:
Logos University administrators want to sell patents from their research to corporations to fund programs that improve undergraduate teaching.

Options:

(A) If companies want to be the only ones funding the university's ongoing research, they might want to keep the patents for themselves. This could make it hard for the university to sell patents to other companies.

(B) Companies that sponsor research at universities can get tax benefits according to new federal tax rules. This doesn't necessarily impact the university's plan directly.

(C) The research scientists at Logos University don't teach much or at all in the undergraduate programs. This means the plan to improve undergraduate teaching with patent money might not directly involve those who are doing the research.

(D) Most of the government-funded research at Logos University is similar to research already done by several companies. This means the patents may not be unique or valuable, making it harder to sell them.

(E) Logos University might not attract companies to sponsor its scientific research. This could limit the number of patents created and the potential to sell them.

Main Issue:

(D) is the most concerning because if the research at Logos University is not unique, the patents might not be worth much, making the university's plan to sell them and fund teaching programs unfeasible.
User avatar
PhenomMBA
User avatar
Joined: 20 Jun 2023
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 75
Own Kudos:
38
Given Kudos: 82
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
Products:
GMAT Club Tests
Posts: 75
Kudos: 38
A new law gives ownership of patents—documents providing exclusive rig 12 Sep 2025, 02:26
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
The premise states 'Administrators at Logos University plan to sell any patents they acquire to corporations in order to fund programs to improve undergraduate teaching.'

Now over here the admin plans on selling 'any' patent they acquire that could also just be 1-2 in a span of XYZ years. Option D states that the research at the uni largely is duplicated but not always. So the plan still remains the same no? Sell whatever patent we get and use the proceedings towards undergrad program! Option A feels a bit stretched where we are assuming corporates to fund both undergrad and research as well!

@egmat
   1   2 
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7445 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
234 posts
miag
188 posts