Even though most universities retain the royalties from faculty member

First, let’s consider the logic of the passage:

• Universities retain royalties from inventions.
• Faculty members retain royalties from books and articles.
• Therefore, the author concludes that faculty members should retain royalties from educational computer software (ECS).

But the passage seems to be missing something. It establishes two categories of royalties: those from inventions (that belong to universities) and those from books and articles (that belong to faculty members). But then it concludes that faculty members should retain royalties from ECS, even though ECS doesn’t fit neatly into either of these categories.

The question then asks which of the answer choices would, if added to the passage, make the conclusion more reasonably drawn. With that in mind, let’s take a look at the answer choices.


Even if royalties from inventions are higher than royalties from educational software programs (ESP), we still don’t know how royalties from ECS compare to royalties from books and articles. So, we have no reason to conclude that royalties from ECS should be treated as royalties from books and articles. Eliminate (A).


Just because faculty members are more likely to produce ESP does not mean that ESP should be treated as books and articles. You could say that faculty members are more likely to produce books and articles than inventions, so ESP should be treated as books and articles. But we would have to assume this with no basis in the passage. And it’s possible that while the likelihood of producing ESP is higher than that of producing inventions, the likelihood of producing ESP is more similar to the likelihood of producing inventions than it is to the likelihood of producing books and articles. So, we can eliminate (B).


(C) merely provides information on the relative prestige of inventions and books/articles. We don’t know anything about the prestige brought by ECS. Eliminate (C).


ESP could very well be more marketable than books and articles, but that definitely does not give us reason to treat ESP as we treat books and articles. Eliminate (D).


(E) indicates that the criteria used to award ESP royalties is more like the criteria used to award book/article royalties than the criteria used to award invention royalties. For that reason, it makes sense to treat ECS royalties as we treat book/article royalties. This is exactly what the author of the passage concludes, so (E) makes the conclusion more reasonably drawn. Therefore, it is the best answer choice.

I hope that helps!
_________________

The passage concludes that, where royalty retention of faculty members’ works is concerned, software should be treated as books and articles are, not as inventions are. The conclusion requires an additional premise establishing that software is, in relevant respects, more comparable to books and articles than to inventions. E provides this kind of premise and is therefore the best answer.

A, B,C and D each describe some difference between software and inventions, or between inventions and books and articles, or between software and books and articles. However, none establishes the required relationship among inventions, software, and books and articles.

E.

I would go for option E that establishes a one to one comparision between books and articles & educational software programs royalty criteria, and therefore suggestes the faculty members to retain it.

E must be it. If educational software is considered as a book, then the conclusion that royalties from educational software going back to the faculty memebers is correct.

It's E
We are looking for a sentence that compares books and software. That's clearly E

Yes the answer is E. Its a easy cake.

This is essentially a strengthen question. The conclusion for this argument is "faculty members should retain the royalties from the educational computer software they develop". Option "E" strengthens the conclusion by drawing a parallel between books and articles and educational computer software.

E.
Since the royalities from Books are retained. To retain from Edu Softwares. Edu Softwares must be similar to books

The author argues that Faculty members should retain royalties from educational software they develop since:
Faculty members retain royalties from books and articles they write

background/counter: universities retain royalties from members' inventions

missing info: what's the link between the software and the books/ articles? Is the software based on the books/ articles?

A - differences in royalty amounts are irrelevant to the argument
B - this does not serve as plausible grounds to support the argument that authors should receive royalties from edu. software they develop
C - prestige means squat in the scheme of this argument
D - marketability of the educational software does not support the argument.
E - Supports the notion that educational software royalties are more aligned to the royalties currently received by faculty members.
_________________

Option 2 suggests that since more likely, it is possible and since universities take royalties on inventions, Faculty should too.
Option 4 suggests that since it is marketable, it would be good to take royalties.
However Option 5 seems strong option.
Since strengthening is about indication, I was not able to reject the option choices 2 and 4 strongly.

We should not consider what is good from the real world experience. 2nd and 4 are rejected because these information are irrelevant to the conclusion.
Q: Why universities retain inventions but not books .
I am looking to find what is so similar between books and software. The gap is filed with option E as you mentioned.

It's a clear E. The argument is that faculty should retain royalties from software because educational computer software is similar to books and articles.

Even though most universities retain the royalties from faculty members inventions, the faculty members retain the royalties from books and articles they write. Therefore, faculty members should retain the royalties from the educational computer software they develop.

The conclusion above would be more reasonably drawn if which of the following were inserted into the argument as an additional premise?

(A) Royalties from inventions are higher than royalties from educational software programs. X
(B) Faculty members are more likely to produce educational software programs than inventions. X
(C) Inventions bring more prestige to universities than do books and articles. X
(D) In the experience of most universities, educational software programs are more marketable than are books and articles. X
(E) In terms of the criteria used to award royalties, educational software programs are more nearly comparable to books and articles than to inventions. CORRECT
_________________

The argument is trying to create parallel between written works, and coded works. Any option that addresses this concern should be a high priority to keep, since it would improve the claim in the argument.

A mentions higher royalties but that's not the focus in the argument.

B, and C are out of scope

D only benefits the university not the professor

E addresses the concern identified by making software programs and books/articles parallel.

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.
_________________