The system of patent-granting, which confers temporary monopolies for

KarishmaB

Madam can you explain why option A is incorrect in Que 1.

1. The passage is primarily concerned with discussing

(A) a study suggesting that the semiconductor industry’s approach to patenting during the period from 1982 to 1992 yielded unanticipated results

My understanding - Patents are not always able to accomplish the goal for which they were originally established. To support this author presents studies.

Option A is closer to the crux than option C. Can you explain why Option A is incorrect and Option C is better.

For question 1 - the author primarily starts the passage "some patenting system..why was it established. Then contrasts "yet" studies of the most patent-conscious industry, i.e., Semiconductors (so it means whatever the author says for Semiconductors applies to majority of industries as Semiconductor is the most prominent amongst all) and says firms do not necessarily become more innovative as they increase their patenting activity. - This is the main point if you say. After this is an example to substantiate this, so the main point of the question must be about innovation and patenting in the firms or semiconductor industry (as whatever applies to Semiconductors applies to most industries as the Semiconductor industry is the most prominent among all); which is what option C conveys. (On a lighter note, It is true in our current situation when Semiconductors are driving the majority of things around us - Internet of Things , so much impact of Semiconductors that governments are investing billions to stay ahead of the game and ensure future growth)

For Question 3 - If we remove the modifiers from this statement from the passage, "Moreover, Ziedonis and Hall found that as patenting activity at semiconductor firms increased in the 1980s, the consensus among industry employees was that the average quality of their firms' patents declined." As patenting increased, the average quality of the patents fell. So option B is factually opposite of what is stated in the passage.

Now read this sentence: "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 1980s." The decline in the 1980s from what? From some high point, when was that high point before the 1980's? That's what option A conveys. The question as such is not difficult, but it has enough traps laid out to miss the forest for the trees.

Hi Ninja, and All. I am sorry but I still cannot comprehend the questions
I would like to confirm the situation:
1. Argument state the method of Qualification is based on number of citation: High Citation = greater quality
2. Option E fully contradicts the method, since it says whether the patent's quality is high or low it would still be cited proportionately frequent
what weaken the author’s claim about what constitutes a reasonable yardstick for measuring patent quality means what weaken the base principle / method (constitutes a for measuring )
Do I interpret it right?