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 Your Progress
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.
Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
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 suites or as a means to block competitors' products.
4. Which of the following, if true, would most clearly serve to weaken the author’s claim about what constitutes a reasonable yardstick for measuring patent quality?
(A) It is more difficult to have an article accepted for publication in the technical literature of the semiconductor industry than it is in the technical literature of most other industries. (B) Many of the highest-quality semiconductor patents are cited numerous times in the technical literature. (C) It is difficult for someone not familiar with the technical literature to recognize what constitutes an innovative semiconductor patent. (D) There were more citations made per semiconductor patent in the technical literature in the 1970’s than in the 1980’s. (E) Low-quality patents tend to be discussed in the technical literature as frequently as high-quality patents.
Can anyone explain , why the answer to the above question above is not A?
Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block below for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Can anyone explain , why the answer to the above question above is not A?
Show more
Hello, srikarkali. The passage is discussed in depth in this thread. If you scroll down a bit, you will find at least one Expert response to question 4 (by none other than GMATNinja himself). If you still do not understand the question after reading through the responses, you might want to post again in that thread.
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 suites or as a means to block competitors' products.
4. Which of the following, if true, would most clearly serve to weaken the author’s claim about what constitutes a reasonable yardstick for measuring patent quality?
(A) It is more difficult to have an article accepted for publication in the technical literature of the semiconductor industry than it is in the technical literature of most other industries. (B) Many of the highest-quality semiconductor patents are cited numerous times in the technical literature. (C) It is difficult for someone not familiar with the technical literature to recognize what constitutes an innovative semiconductor patent. (D) There were more citations made per semiconductor patent in the technical literature in the 1970’s than in the 1980’s. (E) Low-quality patents tend to be discussed in the technical literature as frequently as high-quality patents.
Can anyone explain , why the answer to the above question above is not A?
Show more
This question has already been discussed here, please search the topic before posting.
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block above for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.