Stronger patent laws are needed to protect inventions from being pirat

Question

Stronger patent laws are needed to protect inventions from being pirated. With that protection, manufacturers would be encouraged to invest in the development of new products and technologies. Such investment frequently results in an increase in a manufacturer’s productivity.

Which of the following conclusions can most properly be drawn from the information above?

(A) Stronger patent laws tend to benefit financial institutions as well as manufacturers.

(B) Increased productivity in manufacturing is likely to be accompanied by the creation of more manufacturing jobs.

(C) Manufacturers will decrease investment in the development of new products and technologies unless there are stronger patent laws.

(D) The weakness of current patent laws has been a cause of economic recession.

(E) Stronger patent laws would stimulate improvements in productivity for many manufacturers.

Vercules · Accepted Answer

Hi Ankit,

This is a conclusion question, and the correct answer to a conclusion "Must be True" according to the stimulus. An answer choice for which we have to assume anything extra can be safely eliminated.

The correct answer to these questions could be of two types:

i) Restatement of a premise already mentioned in the stimulus 
ii) A logical result of combining tow or more premises

Lets consider both the answer choices A and E

(A) Stronger patent laws tend to benefit financial institutions as well as manufacturers.

Here you have to make an assumption that the financial institutions are investing in manufacturing companies. In real life this is a common thing but, the manufacturer could also invest its own profits into research and development of new products. This will not benefit financial institution. So this choice will not be "Must be True" based on the stimulus.

If the choice would have been worded as under it would have been correct:

(A) Stronger patent laws tend to benefit manufacturers. --> this must be true as per the passage.

Strict patent laws --> Protect manufacturers

manufacturers protected --> they get encouraged to invest in R&D

Investment in R&D --> increased productivity

Logical conclusion: Strict patent laws --> increased productivity

Now (E)

(E) Stronger patent laws would stimulate improvements in productivity for many manufacturers.

This choice is a logical conclusion that we derived above. No new assumption has to be made for this to be true. Therefore it "Must be True" based on the premises given in the stimulus.

Hope it helps,

BarneyStinson · Answer

With stronger patent laws, manufacturers will be encouraged to invest more does not mean that they will be discouraged with weaker patent laws (may be laws are weak right now and manufacturers are receding their investments?, nothing of this kind can be claimed). So when C states that Manufacturers will decrease investments unless there are stronger laws cannot be asserted, fails the fact-test. Among all remaining options, only E is sensible.

jeeteshsingh · Answer

Answer is E....

C is based on the fact that Manufacturers would  only  be encouraged to do investments if the patent laws are intact! This isnt the case which is stated in the stem! Hence not valid.

puneetj · Answer

C and E both seem attractive.

For C:
If A then B (Stronger patent laws then more investment)
If NOT A then NOT B (If weak patent laws then no investment) - NOT always CORRECT

Hence C is out.

Choice E is correct.

MBAhereIcome · Answer

if there are strong patents, then manufacturers will be encouraged to invest
P -> I

C) manufacturers will decrease investment unless patents are strong
I'   -> P
this may not be correct. so E is the answer.

a couple of examples of unless statements and their conditional diagrams.
Unless a person studies, he or she will not receive an A+.
A+ -> Study

There can be no peace without justice.
Peace -> Justice

boomtangboy · Answer

You cant justify C using the stimulus. Manufacturers may have no option but to invent new products to ensure survival.

E can definately be justified : strong patent laws can stimulate productivity by enticing the producers.

thienbinh · Answer

Because I think no answer above explains clear and simple enough, I will give mine:

C: There's no certainty that manufacturers will decrease investment. Their investment may not rise, but it may equal to that of previous time. The premise only said " ...  manufacturers would be encouraged to invest  ..."

E: Correct

ankit546 · Answer

Stronger patent laws are needed to protect inventions from being pirated. With that protection, manufacturers would be encouraged to invest in the development of new products and technologies. Such investment frequently results in an increase in a manufacturerâ€™s productivity.
Which of the following conclusions can most properly be drawn from the information above?

(A) Stronger patent laws tend to benefit financial institutions as well as manufacturers.
(B) Increased productivity in manufacturing is likely to be accompanied by the creation of more manufacturing jobs.
(C) Manufacturers will decrease investment in the development of new products and technologies unless there are stronger patent laws.
(D) The weakness of current patent laws has been a cause of economic recession.
(E) Stronger patent laws would stimulate improvements in productivity for many manufacturers.

I chose A on the following lines.

Scope of the Argument:

1. Investments in Patents
2. Productivity
3. Patent Laws

According to the scopes, options B, C, and D become out of scope. I am unable to choose between A & E.

carcass · Answer

i do not why you have doubts about A. A is clearly NOT stated in the argument at all. If you dissect the argument

1) Stronger patent laws are needed to protect inventions from being pirated.  to prevent frauds

2) With that protection, manufacturers would be encouraged to invest in the development of new products and technologies.  is clear I guess

3) Such investment frequently results in an increase in a manufacturers productivity. something leads to something else.  is clear

Hope this helps

adkikani · Answer

gmat1393   aragon   VeritasKarishma   nightblade354

Let me know if below understanding and PoE is correct.

This is an inference question, so there may be no conclusion present.

stronger patent laws = inventions not pirated.
this will in turn result in:
manufacturers shall be encouraged to develop new products and technologies. 
this will further lead to:
Increase in productivity of manufacturer.

Not necessary. may be manufacturers have enough cash in their reservoir to fund new innovations and they might not take loans.

Not really, what if new innovation is done by automating existing machinery.

We are not sure what will happen when there are no strong patent laws.

Way out of scope!!

Lovely mild language: would simulate. Yes, the prompt does give a hint to infer this choice.

SonGoku · Answer

Which of the following conclusions can most properly be drawn from the information above?

we cannot say what will happen if the patent laws are not strong enough.May decrease or stay the same.
Opposite and strong(decrease)
 
this remains and can be the conclusion.
 E is the winner

CEdward · Answer

Stronger patent laws are needed to protect inventions from being pirated. With that protection, manufacturers would be encouraged to invest in the development of new products and technologies. Such investment frequently results in an increase in a manufacturer’s productivity.

Which of the following conclusions can most properly be drawn from the information above?

(A) Stronger patent laws tend to benefit  financial institutions  as well as manufacturers.
Left field answer. We don’t know anything about how patent laws would benefit financial institutions.

(B) Increased productivity in manufacturing is likely to be accompanied by the  creation of more manufacturing jobs. 
No…increased productivity would lead us to think that fewer jobs (potentially) might be needed. Why? Efficiency is up so more is getting done given the existing human capital. So there’s no reason to think more people would be hired…in a vacuum of course.

(C) Manufacturers will  decrease investment  in the development of new products and technologies unless there are stronger patent laws.
We don’t know that they will decrease investment…this choice makes the implicit assumption that the introduction of patient laws are the only reason why firms invest in the development of new products and technologies.

(D) The weakness of current patent laws has been a cause of  economic recession. 
Left field. No link to recessions in the passage.

(E) Stronger patent laws would stimulate improvements in productivity for many manufacturers.
Correct

TanyaJ · Answer

Strong patent laws --> Piracy removed --> Investment will increase --> Productivity increase 
Therefore, Strong patent laws --> Productivity increase

Kavicogsci · Answer

Can we take out C basis the contrapositive concept

Stimulus says
If <More patent laws> then <More invst>
This doesnt mean that
If no more patent laws then decrease in invst

Also investments might not increase, but doesnt mean they have to decrease. They could remain same. Another way to argue would be that despite weak patent laws, there are still lot of reasons why manufacturing still wont lose charm due to n number of reasons

Stronger patent laws are needed to protect inventions from being pirat

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

Stronger patent laws are needed to protect inventions from being pirat

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