Last visit was: 18 May 2024, 23:26 It is currently 18 May 2024, 23:26
Toolkit
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

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.

A new law gives ownership of patents—documents providing exclusive rig

SORT BY:
Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
Intern
Joined: 13 Nov 2016
Posts: 30
Own Kudos [?]: 7 [0]
Given Kudos: 70
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Posts: 5195
Own Kudos [?]: 4677 [1]
Given Kudos: 639
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1:
715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Intern
Joined: 14 Jul 2021
Posts: 3
Own Kudos [?]: 0 [0]
Given Kudos: 2
Location: India
Intern
Joined: 21 Jun 2018
Posts: 8
Own Kudos [?]: 2 [0]
Given Kudos: 58
Location: India
Re: A new law gives ownership of patents—documents providing exclusive rig [#permalink]
dav373 wrote:
Whenever I looked at this problem I thought along the lines of, what would make the university not able to allocate funds towards undergraduate programs by not selling their patents.

I eliminated answer D last because it said that a lot of the research they perform is just a duplicate of work performed and completed by for-profit corporations. If it is duplicate research then they would never be awarded a patent which means that this option is irrelevant to the question. All this option states is that most of their research won't result in a patent which is 100% irrelevant (in my mind) to the argument.

I selected A because if the corporations are only willing to allocate their money as a sponsorship and not as outright buying the patents for cash, then the school would not be able to allocate money to their undergraduate program. All you would have is the government and corporations sponsoring additional research but that would not translate in to more money for undergraduate studies.

Good point. However, focus on the goal here. The aim is to weaken the viability of the plan, and the plan is to sell the patents and not to fund the undergraduate program. Now, option D directly attacks the plan. If the university patents are duplicate of corporations, the corps don't have a reason to buy them, so the plan is not viable in that case. Your Option A reasoning focuses on whether the patent money could be allocated to undergraduate program, but for that to stand, they have to be sold first, and you need to attack the selling part.
Intern
Joined: 30 Dec 2021
Posts: 4
Own Kudos [?]: 1 [0]
Given Kudos: 7
Re: A new law gives ownership of patentsdocuments providing exclusive rig [#permalink]
hey GMATNinja! could you please add your two cents to the question. I am unable to understand the heart of this argument
Manager
Joined: 06 Apr 2022
Posts: 126
Own Kudos [?]: 13 [0]
Given Kudos: 22
Re: A new law gives ownership of patentsdocuments providing exclusive rig [#permalink]
noboru wrote:
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.

The question wants us to identify the administrator's plan then to identify an option that doubts that plan the best. Reading through the plan, we can tell the administrator's plan after the latest changes by the government is to sell the patents to private companies. Any option that points to why "selling patents to private companies" would fail will be keepers.

A would mean the plan was successful by gathering sponsors from companies. Eliminate.

B is out of scope and a neutral outcome for the plan.

C is out of scope since it doesn't even mention the plan, only the outcome if the plan is successful.

E doesn't provide any benefit or doubt to the plan.

D points to why a private company wouldn't buy the patent from the government-sponsored research. The research mimics profit-making companies. Correct!
Intern
Joined: 09 Aug 2018
Posts: 2
Own Kudos [?]: 0 [0]
Given Kudos: 17
Re: A new law gives ownership of patentsdocuments providing exclusive rig [#permalink]
I understand why option A is incorrect, But option D talks about patents resulting from government sponsored research. Last sentence of the passage says that the university plans to sell "any" patents they acquire (this can be government sponsored or not). We are not sure if government is the only entity sponsoring the university research.

Option D says - Government-sponsored research duplicates research already completed by several profit-making corporations. Now, there are other patents too which the university has and those patents could be sold to corporates.

Are we choosing the best answer here? Because option D has flaws.
Can somebody guide on this.
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Posts: 5195
Own Kudos [?]: 4677 [1]
Given Kudos: 639
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1:
715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Re: A new law gives ownership of patentsdocuments providing exclusive rig [#permalink]
1
Kudos
Sahiba1 wrote:
I understand why option A is incorrect, But option D talks about patents resulting from government sponsored research. Last sentence of the passage says that the university plans to sell "any" patents they acquire (this can be government sponsored or not). We are not sure if government is the only entity sponsoring the university research.

Option D says - Government-sponsored research duplicates research already completed by several profit-making corporations. Now, there are other patents too which the university has and those patents could be sold to corporates.

Are we choosing the best answer here? Because option D has flaws.
Can somebody guide on this.

Hi Sahiba1,

This is the information we have about ownership (of patents):
noboru wrote:
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.

Option D gives us some reason to think that there won't be a market for at least some of the patents acquired by Logos. In the absence of a better option, D is the correct answer.
Intern
Joined: 01 Sep 2022
Posts: 7
Own Kudos [?]: 1 [0]
Given Kudos: 19
Re: A new law gives ownership of patentsdocuments providing exclusive rig [#permalink]
Premise : Plan to sell patents to corporate to get funds
We need to attack the premise that plans to sell patent to corporate in order to get funding. What if the corporate has already done similar research. They will not buy the patent then --> so no funding ---> so no improvement in undergraduate studies (Option D)
Senior Manager
Joined: 20 Dec 2020
Posts: 289
Own Kudos [?]: 30 [0]
Given Kudos: 498
Location: India
Re: A new law gives ownership of patentsdocuments providing exclusive rig [#permalink]
KarishmaB
Hi Karishma,
Why E is incorrect?
(E) Logos University is unlikely to attract corporate sponsorship of its scientific research.
If university is unlikely to attract sponsorship, their plan to sell any patent will not work. This reasoning will weaken the plan.

Manager
Joined: 07 Mar 2020
Posts: 119
Own Kudos [?]: 67 [0]
Given Kudos: 52
GMAT 1: 680 Q49 V34
Re: A new law gives ownership of patentsdocuments providing exclusive rig [#permalink]
GMATNinja 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

(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.

Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 14891
Own Kudos [?]: 65352 [2]
Given Kudos: 431
Location: Pune, India
Re: A new law gives ownership of patentsdocuments providing exclusive rig [#permalink]
2
Kudos
rickyric395 wrote:
GMATNinja 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

(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.

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.
Director
Joined: 11 Sep 2022
Posts: 500
Own Kudos [?]: 156 [0]
Given Kudos: 2
Location: India
Paras: Bhawsar
GMAT 1: 590 Q47 V24
GMAT 2: 580 Q49 V21
GMAT 3: 700 Q49 V35
GPA: 3.2
WE:Project Management (Other)
Re: A new law gives ownership of patentsdocuments providing exclusive rig [#permalink]
Option (D) weakens the viability of the college administrators' plan by suggesting that much of the government-sponsored research conducted at Logos University duplicates research already completed by corporations. This duplication of research diminishes the uniqueness and value of the university's patents, making it less likely for corporations to be interested in purchasing them.
Manager
Joined: 19 Feb 2022
Status:Preparing for the GMAT
Posts: 87
Own Kudos [?]: 27 [0]
Given Kudos: 47
Location: India
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V35
GPA: 3.33
WE:Consulting (Consulting)
Re: A new law gives ownership of patentsdocuments providing exclusive rig [#permalink]
noboru wrote:
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.

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.