­To grant a patent for a product, thereby entitling its inventor to

­To grant a patent for a product, thereby entitling its inventor to control its use, patent officials must judge that the product contains an innovation that would not be obvious to experts in the relevant field. There are many fields in which no patent official is expert, so almost certainly many patents are being granted for products that in fact contain no such innovation.

The conclusion of the argument is the following:

almost certainly many patents are being granted for products that in fact contain no such innovation

The support for the conclusion is the following:

There are many fields in which no patent official is expert

So, the reasoning of the argument goes from the fact that there are fields in which no patent official is expert to the conclusion that patents are being granted without the type of innovation supposedly required for a product to be granted a patent.

The argument relies on which of the following assumptions?

The question is an Assumption question, and the correct answer will be information that's necessary for the evidence to effectively support the conclusion.

A. Products are never invented by people who are not experts in the relevant field.

If this choice were not true, the argument would still work.

After all, if products ARE invented by people who are not experts, that information would be in line with the argument's conclusion, which is basically that products that experts would not consider innovative get patents.

Who would make such products? People who are not experts!

So, the argument doesn't rely on this choice.

Eliminate.

B. Few experts in a field invent products that contain innovations that are obvious.

The point of the argument is basically that products whose innovations are obvious get through the system and are granted patents.

So, this choice basically goes against the argument. After all, if anything, the fact that "few," meaning "not many," experts invent products that contain obvious innovations would serve to reduce the likelihood that such products get patents.

Eliminate.

C. Most experts would prefer to work in their own fields rather than in the patent office.

This choice could explain why, as the passage says, "There are many fields in which no patent official is expert."

At the same time, we don't need such an explanation. We need an assumption on which the argument relies, and the argument doesn't require any assumption about why there are fields in which no patent official is expert.

After all, regardless of why there are fields in which no patent official is expert, the fact that there are such fields supports the conclusion.

Eliminate.

D. Most new products contain innovations that are not obvious to experts in the relevant field.

The conclusion of the argument is that patents are being granted for products that DO NOT contain innovations that are not obvious to experts.

Arriving at that conclusion doesn't require assuming that most new products DO contain such innovations.

Simply put, this choice is basically contrary to the conclusion rather than supports it.

Eliminate.

E. Patents are not customarily granted on the basis of advice from experts outside the patent office.

What if this choice is not true? Let's negate it.

Patents ARE customarily granted on the basis of advice from experts outside the patent office.

We see that, if this choice is not true, then the argument falls apart.

After all, if the patent office uses outside experts, then even though there may be no patent official who is expert in a particular field, products in that field will likely be analyzed by outside experts in that field. In that case, the conclusion that patents are granted for products that don't have nonobvious innovation doesn't follow from the evidence.

So, for the argument to work, this choice must be true.

Keep.

Correct answer: E­