RC - Primary Concern Question

Also, since we are discussing Primary Purpose questions, there is an idea of developed idea.

Developed idea basically means that author, well, develops the idea.

One classic way in which author develops an idea is by mentioning a study that supports Authors position.
In that case, it becomes really easy to identify the Main Point or Primary Purpose, and still easier to eliminate couple of incorrect answers instantly.

Look at this official RC:
https://gmatclub.com/forum/the-system-o ... ew%20ideas.

Quoting here for your convenience.





The system of patent-granting, which confers temporary monopolies for the exploitation of new technologies, was originally established as an incentive to the pursuit of risky new ideas. Yet studies of the most patent-conscious business of all—the semi-conductor industry—suggest that firms do not necessarily become more innovative as they increase their patenting activity. Ziedonis and Hall, for example, found that investment in research and development (a reasonable proxy for innovation) did not substantially increase between 1982 and 1992, the industry's most feverish period of patenting. Instead, semiconductor firms simply squeezed more patents out of existing research and development expenditures. Moreover, Ziedonis and Hall found that as patenting activity at semiconductor firms increased in the 1980's, the consensus among industry employees was that the average quality of their firms' patents declined. Though patent quality is a difficult notion to measure, the number of times a patent is cited in the technical literature is a reasonable yardstick, and citations per semiconductor patent did decline during the 1980's. This decline in quality may be related to changes in the way semi-conductor firms managed their patenting process: rather than patenting to win exclusive rights to a valuable new technology, patents were filed more for strategic purposes, to be used as bargaining chips to ward off infringement suits or as a means to block competitors' products.

Red part is developed using an Example
Blue part is an Example.

Whenever the examples are present in an RC, they support something. That which they supports is mostly the Main Point.



Here A and B are instant outs, since discussing a study is NOT the Primary Purpose.
Primary Purpose of a study(by Ziadonis and Hall) is to support something, and that something is the Main Point.

Here's a drill I recommend for this kind of thing. I call it "Reverse Reading Comp." Note this is not at ALL how you should take the actual test.

Go to an RC question *before* reading the passage. For instance, I'll look at the question you provided (without reading the passage). And *write out* exactly what the passage would need to say/be in order to justify choosing that answer choice. So:


The passage would need to talk about legislation. It would need to discuss *why* certain people want to propose this legislation. Then there would need to be various groups who have different groups who either have different opinions about those motives (I take this to mean either "different groups disagree on the motives" OR "the true motives are known, and different groups have different opinions about those motives").



The passage would need to talk about certain legislation that different people have different beliefs about, and different reasons for those beliefs. The passage would compare those reasons/beliefs.

Since you were confused between A and B, look at the difference in what would make either answer 'right.' A is a comparison of some groups' views about *the motives of people supporting legislation*. B is a comparison of *people's opinions concerning the legislation*.

So A would be either, "Group 1 thinks the motives of the people supporting the legislation are X. Group 2 thinks those motives are Y." Answer B is "Group 1 thinks this about the legislation, Group 2 thinks Y."



This would lay out the process that led to a piece of legislation getting enacted. It would 'tell a story' of some kind.



The passage would need to talk about certain proposed legislation and have various groups who, for whatever their opinions were about the legislation, adopted certain 'tactics' (presumably to sway opinion about the legislation). The passage would say which tactics worked and which did not.



The passage would need to discuss proposed legislation, and talk about various groups' arguments about it. The passage would evaluate the arguments--so would probably lay out which were better and which were worse, or which were convincing and which were not. The difference in B is that there's an evaluation. B is just 'here are the various groups' opinions and reasons.' E is 'Here are their reasons, and here's my thoughts whether these reasons are good or bad.'


After you do this, THEN you read the passage. And you decide which of the paragraphs you've written for each answer choice best matches what is actually written.

It's far, far too easy to let the passage and the questions 'bleed' together. And that's understandable--we're trying to answer a question about the passage. But the truth is, the question itself is just a collection of 'thoughts.' You're looking for which of those thoughts is either IN or LOGICALLY IMPLIED BY the thoughts *in the passage*. It helps to practice understanding the thoughts of the question *in isolation*. After that it's just a matching game.