A university should not be entitled to patent the inventions of its fa

Question

A university should not be entitled to patent the inventions of its faculty members. Universities, as guarantors of intellectual freedom, should encourage the free flow of ideas and the general dissemination of knowledge. Yet a university that retains the right to patent the inventions of its faculty members has a motive to suppress information about a potentially valuable discovery until the patent for it has been secured. Clearly, suppressing information concerning such discoveries is incompatible with the university's obligation to promote the free flow of ideas.

Which one of the following is an assumption that the argument makes?

Which one of the following is an assumption that the argument makes?

(A) Universities are the only institutions that have an obligation to guarantee intellectual freedom.
(B) Most inventions by university faculty members would be profitable if patented.
(C) Publication of reports on research is the only practical way to disseminate information concerning new discoveries.
(D) Universities that have a motive to suppress information concerning discoveries by their faculty members will occasionally act on that motive.
(E) If the inventions of a university faculty member are not patented by that university, then they will be patented by the faculty member instead.

broall · Accepted Answer

The argument is like this:

The author think that universities:  
   should encourage the free flow of ideas and knowledge  (A)  
  shouldn't be entitled to patent the inventions of its faculty members

Premise:   A university has a motive  (B)  to suppress information about a potentially valuable discovery

Conclusion:   Suppressing information  (C)  is incompatible with the university's obligation  (A) .

The missing link here is that "a motive"  (B)  and action  (C)  are totally different. Answer choice D fills this missing link well.

(A) Universities are the only institutions that have an obligation to guarantee intellectual freedom.
 The argument includes no information about the role of universities as the only institutions that have an obligation to guarantee intellectual freedom. The problem with this option is the word "only"

(B) Most inventions by university faculty members would be profitable if patented.
 The argument doesn't have any concern about the profit from those inventions.

(C) Publication of reports on research is the only practical way to disseminate information concerning new discoveries.
 This choice is irrelevant to the argument. Again, the problem with this option is the word "only"

(D) Universities that have a motive to suppress information concerning discoveries by their faculty members will occasionally act on that motive.
 Correct as stated above

(E) If the inventions of a university faculty member are not patented by that university, then they will be patented by the faculty member instead.
 The argument has no concern about the fact that those faculty members will hold the patent of those inventions.

Bunuel · Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

(A) No. The passage refers to only universities. So any assumption does not need to exclude other institutions that are not universities.

(B) No. The passage explicitly refers to “potentially valuable” discoveries. So the argument does not need to assume that most inventions by university faculty members would be profitable, nor even that some inventions would be profitable. It needs to assume only that there are some discoveries by faculty members.

(C) No. The passage is about the suppression of information, not about how to best disseminate information.

(D) Yes.  The passage states that universities have a motive to suppress information about potentially valuable discoveries until patents have been secured. It then states, “ suppressing information concerning such discoveries is incompatible with the university’s obligation to promote the free flow of ideas .” This assumes that on at least one occasion universities will act on their motives.

(E) No. The passage does not allude to any struggle between the faculty and the university regarding who should get the patents, so this assumption is not needed.

kunalsinghNS · Answer

Hi  broall ,

I was tied up between option C & D but later on selected D.
can you explain both the options ?

kunalsinghNS · Answer

Considering option D -

Actual Statement - Universities that have a motive to suppress information concerning discoveries by their faculty members will occasionally act on that motive

Negated Statement - Universities that have a motive to suppress information concerning discoveries by their faculty members will occasionally  not  act on that motive

This mean if the university occasionally not act on the motive of suppressing the conclusion of the argument - "suppressing information concerning such discoveries is incompatible with the university's obligation to promote the free flow of ideas. "
will not hold.

Am i right with the above analysis ?

broall · Answer

I'm not sure wheather you are right. However, I think that negative technique doesn't work with assumption questions in general.

kunalsinghNS · Answer

How will you negate option D ?

can you elaborate on that ?

HKD1710 · Answer

Hi kunalsinghNS , To negate choice D we should change "will" to "will not", which is what you correctly did. broall - Negation technique is basically used for ASSUMPTION questions. Thanks

kunalsinghNS · Answer

I was tied up between option C & D but later on selected D.
can you explain how to implement "Negate" technique for this particular assumption question ?

GMATNinjaTwo · Answer

The problem with the negation technique is that some answer choices don't have obvious "opposites", and it's easy to come up with an incorrect negated statement.

Putting the word "not" after occasionally could change the meaning, so I'd make it: "Universities that have a motive to suppress information concerning discoveries by their faculty members will  not  occasionally act on that motive."

The author concludes that a university should not be entitled to patent the inventions of its faculty members since this would cause the university to suppress information. But if the universities are not actually going to act on their motives to suppress information, then the author's reason is no longer valid.

longhaul123 · Answer

In this question i could narrow down the answers to options C and D. But i am still not convinced why answer option C is not right. Can someone please help me.

GMATNinja · Answer

Choice (C) does not have to be true. What if there are SEVERAL practical ways to disseminate information concerning new discoveries? The author argues that universities are motivated to suppress information until patent rights have been secured. Whether there is only one way to disseminate information concerning new discoveries or multiple ways, the author's argument still applies.

I hope this helps!

nightblade354 · Answer

I wrestled with this question for a while. My only concern is what the negation means.

Yet a university that retains the right to patent the inventions of its faculty members has a motive to suppress information about a potentially valuable discovery until the patent for it has been secured. Clearly, suppressing information concerning such discoveries is incompatible with the university's obligation to promote the free flow of ideas.

(D) Universities that have a motive to suppress information concerning discoveries by their faculty members will NOT occasionally act on that motive.
-- To me, this sentence means the University may act on their motive all the time, not just occasionally. The use of the word 'occasionally' through me off. Any advice on this matter would be appreciated.

GMATNinja · Answer

I understand your confusion here... if they are not "occasionally" acting on that motive, are they instead ALWAYS acting on that motive? But consider the following example:

Wilbur constantly wants to eat burritos, but since they are unhealthy, he only eats them occasionally.

In other words, Wilbur will occasionally act on his desire to eat burritos. If I tell you that Wilbur does NOT occasionally act on those desires, do you think I'm trying to tell you that he eats burritos every time he gets the urge? Or that he always refrains from acting on those desires? The latter makes more sense given the context.

Sure, negating choice (D) might imply that the universities ALWAYS act on that motive, but this is not the best interpretation given the context. More importantly, you should be able to eliminate the other answer choices and realize that (D) is the best answer.

I hope that helps!

sunny91 · Answer

Hi GmatNinja,
I eliminated option D, as it says the universities will occasionally act. So, I moved to other choices and felt option B makes sense. Here, is my understanding of option B- since universities have a motive to suppress information until they are patented, so these motives somehow benefit the universities(monetory, outwitting competition...whatever). 
Option B states that Most inventions by university faculty members would be profitable(benefited) if patented. so, if the motives are not benefited , then suppressing information does not make sense. So, option B can be the assumption to hold the argument. Please help me in my understanding, where I am wrong

B) Most inventions by university faculty members would be profitable if patented.

(D) Universities that have a motive to suppress information concerning discoveries by their faculty members will occasionally act on that motive.

gmatexam439 · Answer

A university should not be entitled to patent the inventions of its faculty members. Universities, as guarantors of intellectual freedom, should encourage the free flow of ideas and the general dissemination of knowledge. Yet a university that retains the right to patent the inventions of its faculty members has a motive to suppress information about a potentially valuable discovery until the patent for it has been secured. Clearly, suppressing information concerning such discoveries is incompatible with the university's obligation to promote the free flow of ideas.

Which one of the following is an assumption that the argument makes?

Which one of the following is an assumption that the argument makes?

(A) Universities are the only institutions that have an obligation to guarantee intellectual freedom. - Exaggerated choice (only institutions) 
(B) Most inventions by university faculty members would be profitable if patented. - The argument is not concerned about profits 
(C) Publication of reports on research is the only practical way to disseminate information concerning new discoveries. - Argument doesn't talk about the ways to state the research 
(D) Universities that have a motive to suppress information concerning discoveries by their faculty members will occasionally act on that motive. - Correct.If the universities hide the information, then they are definitely acting against the ethics 
(E) If the inventions of a university faculty member are not patented by that university, then they will be patented by the faculty member instead. - out of scope

GMATNinja · Answer

Thanks for the excellent response  nightblade354 !

Yes, the problem with (B) is that we don't need MOST inventions to be profitable. The argument states that a university would have a "motive to suppress information about a  potentially  valuable discovery until the patent for it has been secured." The university does not know in advance which patents will be valuable. They might suppress information about 100 patents... perhaps all 100 will end up being valuable, but perhaps only some (or none!) will be valuable. Regardless, according to the author, the universities are still motivated to suppress the information to avoid sharing POTENTIALLY valuable information.

jawele · Answer

Hello

Out of curiosity, if the question were the BOLD face type of question, which would be the conclusion? I suppose:

A university should not be entitled to patent the inventions of its faculty members. - C
Clearly, suppressing information concerning such discoveries is incompatible with the university's obligation to promote the free flow of ideas. - P

Anyone disagrees? why?

Thanks for sharing your ideas

GMATNinja   GMATNinja two @nightblade345  Skywalker18

nightblade354 · Answer

jawele , I can agree with that. I think your premise is a sub-conclusion/major premise, but either way you are correct in that the first sentence is the conclusion; everything supports it.

Use the because/therefore technique whenever you are confused!

VerbalBot · Answer

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

A university should not be entitled to patent the inventions of its fa

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

A university should not be entitled to patent the inventions of its fa

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards