At Company X, a new firm which is at present devoted entirely to the d

Question

At Company X, a new firm which is at present devoted entirely to the design of software applications, all employees are required to agree to the following policy: Any idea or invention conceived of by employees that is related to Company X’s past, present, or future business is owned exclusively by Company X, not the individual employee. Thus, if a Company X employee has conceived of an idea or invention during his/her employment with Company X related in any manner to Company X's business, that invention is owned by Company X. The employee may not use or exploit that idea or invention for his or her personal benefit.

An employee of Company X has recently sold a children's novel to a publisher. Company X has claimed ownership of the novel on the basis of the stated policy, and the employee intends to dispute the Company's claim.

If ____ 1 ____, then a successful defense of the Company's claimed ownership rights would likely include a statement that ____ 2 ____.

Select for  1  and for  2  the options whereby the statement is most clearly supported. Make only two selections, one in each column.

ID: 700197

egmat · Accepted Answer

Hi,

The logical way would be to state a fact against the employee and use it as evidence to convey that company's policy allows the company to own the book.

When we use C in the first blank and A in the second blank, the same logic is conveyed.  
We state that    if   the employee wrote the novel on company's computer (if this is true), then the company has the right to own the book because the policy states that the mere use of Company X's resources in an activity is sufficient grounds for regarding that activity as related to Company X's business.  
So, we are making the statement considering the scenario in which Option C is true.

However, if we reverse the sequence, i.e.,  if we select A for the first blank and C for the second blank, the statement conveys that if the policy (in choice A) is true, the company should include the statement (Choice C). We do not even get to know whether the employee actually wrote the novel on company's computer.  
That is why the reverse sequence is not logical.

Hope that helps.

Regards,
Kanupriya Sharma

KarishmaB · Answer

We have a conditional statement here: If ____ 1 ____, then a successful defense of the Company's claimed ownership rights would likely include a statement that ____ 2 ____. The answers that match are: A principle - mere use of Company X's resources in an activity is sufficient grounds for regarding that activity as related to Company X's business Factual event - the employee wrote the novel on a computer owned by the company If this is the priciple, then defense of the company will include this factual event about the employee. or If this factual event happened, then defense of the company will include this principle that should be followed. Now think what is better? The factual event should have happened. The statement will be drafted based on that. They cannot claim that the event happened because of the principle. Hence, the answer as given makes better sense. I have discussed conditional statements here in detail: https://youtu.be/MmlwcTlHZz8 https://youtu.be/BW8Ijrhjjq8 https://youtu.be/yQYkL1DSslA

chetan2u · Answer

If ____1____, then a successful defense of the Company's claimed ownership rights would likely include a statement that ____2____.

The blanks 1 and 2 have to complement each other. Rather whatever comes in 1 is being defended through or being exploited by 2.

Let us scan the five options.
A. mere use of Company X's resources in an activity is sufficient grounds for regarding that activity as related to Company X's business
B. mere use of Company X's resources in an activity is not sufficient grounds for regarding that activity as related to Company X's business
 The above two are touching the same issue but are opposite. One says if some resources of company are used then the company has right over the product created, while the other says that the company does not have rights over the product.
Surely, from point of view company, the company would make A as a statement rather than B to justify it having rights over something.  
But let us check other options to see whether A complements it.

C. the employee wrote the novel on a computer owned by the company
Now this is surely talking of a resource of company being used. So likely to go with A.

D. the employee has received a significant amount of money from the sale
Irrelevant.

E. the company has plans to expand into publishing
Surely, can fit in as a reason as publishing has been shown to be related to future prospects of the company. However, it does not fit in with A or any other option.

Finally we have two options A and C.
A is a generalised statement while C is an action.

If 1 then use statement that 2.

C and A are the correct options for 1 and 2.

Iwillget770 · Answer

Hi , 
Thank you for your reply.

I chose for 1---- Option B
 B. mere use of Company X's resources in an activity is not sufficient grounds for regarding that activity as related to Company X's business 
and for 2 ---- Option E
 E. the company has plans to expand into publishing

Why this combination is wrong

Regards

chetan2u · Answer

If ____ mere use of Company X's resources in an activity is not sufficient grounds for regarding that activity as related to Company X's business ____, then a successful defense of the Company's claimed  ownership rights would likely include a statement  that ____ the company has plans to expand into publishing ____.

Some reasons
1. Now, what relevance does B have. There is nothing mentioned on what grounds the company is claiming rights over the book. You are using the knowledge from one of the options to fit in B as one of the answer. Does it say in the para that the book was written/compiled or any other activity was carried out making use of company's resources.
2. Statement should generally be giving a rule/regulation to futher the cause of company. So, A and B are better contenders for 'a statement'.
3. C and A is clearly a better option and fits in perfectly fine.
4. The business the company talks of in E is publishing, but the company is not claiming rights over publishing, which is editing and designing, but over the contents of the novel. So, if it claimed that it wants to get into business of creating/writing contents, could have just been fine. In any scenario, point 3 remains. C and A are the best options.

If the novel was written on computer of company, then company can claim it on grounds that mere use of resources gives it rights over the content created.

Nsp10 · Answer

Just like I mentioned in this Questions  https://gmatclub.com/forum/ethics-board-member-all-actions-that-are-permissible-under-the-code-of-ethics-are-also-426633.html#p3374999

Reiterating the solution:

If x is a square, then x is a rectangle,
or we can say
squares are rectangle or
All squares are rectangle
if A(x)--->B(x),
here we are witnessing  conditional statements  (If X then Y) i.e,
Being a square is  sufficient  condition to conclude that x is a rectangle,
but if x is a rectangle we can not surely say that it is a square.(as all rectangle are not squares but all squares are rectangle)  (This counts as necessary condition)

so we can say,
being A(x) is sufficient condition for B(x),
and B(x) is necessary condition for A(x).

now coming to the question we can see the Question Stem is starting from If and just after that there is "then", it means we are dealing here with conditional statements.
On rereading the argument we can see;

Thus,  if  a Company X employee has conceived of an idea or invention .......in any manner to Company X's business,  (we can assume then here)  that invention is owned by Company X.

Now we can see a clear If and then condition,
Hence
Company X employe' Invention (In any manner) (Let us name this A(x))---> Owned by Company X (B(x)).

Now we just have to link this relation in options;
As we derive A(x) is sufficient condition for B(x),
we can say Using the Company's Computer is sufficient for company to claim that it is owned by Company.

Feel Free to Connect.
I am also struggling but making new ways for DI questions.

rrc1996 · Answer

Why can´t it be the other way around? If A -> C makes sense to me as well.

ritz07 · Answer

egmat   chetan2u

Not entirely convinced with the OA. Throughout the passage, nothing is spoken of use of resources by the individual. The points covered are regarding "any invention/idea which is related to company's business - past, present, future" and which "benefits the individual in some way". To this extent, the relevant options are actually D (benefits the individual) because E (company plans to expand into publishing).

At a loss with the question. Can someone explain why my above reasoning is wrong?

purplelemonsoda · Answer

Policy Analysis
   The company's policy requires two main conditions to claim ownership of an employee's work:
 
  The work must be related to the company's business (past, present, or future).  
  The employee gains personal benefit from the work.

Re-Evaluation of Choices D and E
   Let's look at why  D and E  might seem appealing and also why they ultimately don’t work as strongly as  Choices C and A .
 
  Choice D (Column 2): "The employee has received a significant amount of money from the sale." 
 
 This choice aligns with the idea that the work benefits the employee personally, fulfilling the second part of the policy. However, it does not address the requirement that the work is related to Company X's business. So, while it partially supports the claim, it’s not a strong enough choice on its own because it only fulfills one of the policy’s criteria.  
 
  Choice E (Column 2): "The company has plans to expand into publishing." 
 
 This choice addresses the first part of the policy by suggesting that the novel could potentially relate to the company's future business (if Company X expands into publishing). This could support the argument that the work is relevant to the company's business. However, it doesn’t address the issue of personal benefit directly, so it’s incomplete on its own as a defense.  
  
Why C and A Work Better
 
  Choice C (Column 1): "The employee wrote the novel on a computer owned by the company." 
 
 This choice introduces a link between the novel and company resources, which could be used to argue that the novel is connected to the company's assets. Under the broad interpretation of company policy, the use of company resources can imply a connection to the company’s business.  
 
  Choice A (Column 2): "Mere use of Company X's resources in an activity is sufficient grounds for regarding that activity as related to Company X's business." 
 
 This choice complements Choice C by making the case that using company resources is enough to consider the activity (writing the novel) related to the company’s business. This aligns with a broader interpretation of ownership policy and strengthens the company’s claim.

Conclusion
   While  D  and  E  each satisfy one part of the policy individually,  C and A together  more effectively create a comprehensive defense for the company's claim:
 
  C  establishes that the work was created with company resources. 
  A  asserts that using company resources alone is sufficient to consider the work related to the company’s business, aligning with the policy.  
In summary,  C and A  work better because they jointly address both aspects of the company's policy more fully than  D and E  do independently.

SriHari#03 · Answer

"The employee wrote the novel on a computer owned by the company" 
 This is a more specific example of the use of company resources. If the novel was written on a company computer, it could make a stronger case for the company’s claim, since the employee technically used company property for the creative work. However, the real question would be whether the novel is  related  to Company X's business. If it isn’t, then the mere fact that it was written on a company-owned computer doesn't necessarily mean it belongs to the company 
 In an ideal scenario,    the business relation    to the work should be the primary consideration right? and not just the use of company property. I went with e and a I still feel this is the answer ,since all the explanations kinda emphasises fitting the first part of answer with the second part of the answer choice rather giving emphasis to the information given"Any idea or invention conceived of by employees that is related to Company X’s past, present, or future business is owned exclusively by Company X, not the individual employee". Any thoughts that can clarify this would be helpful  GMATNinja  @buenel @sajjad

GMATinsight · Answer

Please check the perfect explanation here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGjoePQKTYU

GMATNinja · Answer

Think of it this way: in a valid if/then construction, the "then" portion is a kind of conclusion that has to follow logically from the "if" portion. So let's break down the logic of (E) in that context.

"IF the company has plans to expand into publishing THEN the   mere use of Company X's resources   in an activity is sufficient grounds for regarding that activity as related to Company X's business."

Huh? If the company is expanding into publishing, why would we assume that the person who wrote the book used any company resources? Couldn't the employee have written the book at home on their own computer? If this were a court case, wouldn't this be a slam-dunk for the employee, who'd just shrug and insist that no company resources were used in the writing of the novel, so who cares if the company happens to be expanding into publishing?

But if someone used a  company  computer, well, now the argument involving the use of company resources is pretty air-tight. So the relevant question isn't "which scenario could be described as better connected to the company's business?" The better question is "which THEN statement follows logically from which IF statement?"

Using the second framework, (C) and (A) fit the bill much more cleanly.

I hope that clears things up!

tdew · Answer

IMO,

Q: If ____1____, then a successful defense of the Company's claimed ownership rights would likely include a statement that ____2____.

"successful defense of the comp's rights",  so we are looking for the company side to claim their rights.

Only one choice leads to this view,  " mere use of Company X's resources in an activity is sufficient grounds for regarding that activity as related to Company X's business "

Next, what would allow the company to succeed in their defense even though the employee wrote a novel that is not entirely related to the company business?
Let's see their policy:
 
 any invention "related in any manner" to Company X's business belongs to them. 
 The policy prohibits employees from exploiting ideas for personal benefit.

- the employee wrote the novel on a computer owned by the company.   -> clearly, he/she used the company resources for make his/her own benefit.

- the employee has received a significant amount of money from the sale.  -> it is just a result, not grounds for the company's claim

- the company has plans to expand into publishing.  -> If the employee had written the novel on their own computer with their own idea,  
 the company's claim would be weakened regardless of future expansion plans. So, it is not relevant whether the company had their plan or not.,

ravi1522 · Answer

Hello ,
I have doubt as per statement that employee cannot use any idea or invention for personal need .So can"t we say that if he get money by selling novel and company plans to get into publishing that can also be an answer . can somebody help me with this ?

Thanks

cheshire · Answer

Company X’s policy  states that any invention is owned by the company  only if  it is  related to Company X’s business .

The fact that the  employee made money  from the novel is  not enough  to support ownership:
 
 Personal benefit is only restricted  if  the work is already considered  related to the company’s business . 
 Using profit alone as justification is  circular logic  — it assumes what we’re trying to prove.

The fact that the  company plans to expand into publishing  also does  not support the claim :
 
 Future business plans do  not retroactively make  a past creative work related to the company’s  present or past  business. 
 GMAT logic relies on  time consistency  — ownership must be based on the business relevance  at the time  of creation.

The strongest support for the company’s claim is:
 
 If the  employee used Company X’s resources  (e.g., a company computer), 
  And  the company defines any use of its resources as sufficient grounds for business-related ownership.

Therefore, only a  resource-based link  (like using a company computer) aligns clearly with the company’s policy and supports a strong defense.

anushree01 · Answer

I`m unable to understand whom is this for : "then a  successful defense of the Company's claimed  ownership rights would likely include a statement that ___"
Do we need a sentence in support of the company or do we need it in favour of the employee ?

cheshire · Answer

The phrasing “a successful defense of the Company’s claimed ownership rights would likely include a statement that ___” means we are filling in a statement that supports the company’s side, not the employee’s.

>The company claims ownership of the novel based on its policy.
>A “successful defense of the Company’s claimed ownership rights” means we are imagining the company winning the case.
>For the company to win, they would need to make arguments that strengthen the idea that the novel is “related to Company X’s business” under their policy.

So:
>Blank 1 is a condition that, if true, would make the company’s argument stronger.
>Blank 2 is the supporting statement that the company would use to justify ownership.

vivzz · Answer

Why the employee has written novel on company computer and company is planning to enter into publishing is right ?as this is company x future business idea. why this is wrong?

Bunuel · Answer

The issue with your suggested pair is that the two statements don’t logically connect.

Statement 1 (“employee wrote the novel on company computer”) is about use of company resources.

Statement 2 (“company is planning to enter publishing”) is about future business scope.

They don’t reinforce each other, one is about the circumstances of creation, the other is about the nature of the business. A valid pair needs to work together to support the company’s claim under the policy.

That’s why the official pair works:

(1) employee wrote the novel on company computer, and

(2) mere use of company resources is sufficient grounds.

Here, both statements line up around the same idea (use of resources), so they directly support each other.

At Company X, a new firm which is at present devoted entirely to the d

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

1	2
		mere use of Company X's resources in an activity is sufficient grounds for regarding that activity as related to Company X's business
		mere use of Company X's resources in an activity is not sufficient grounds for regarding that activity as related to Company X's business
		the employee wrote the novel on a computer owned by the company
		the employee has received a significant amount of money from the sale
		the company has plans to expand into publishing

GMAT Two-part Analysis (TPA) Questions

At Company X, a new firm which is at present devoted entirely to the d

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