The development of new inventions is promoted by the

Question

The development of new inventions is promoted by the granting of patent rights, which restrict the right of anyone but the patent holders to profit from these inventions for a specified period. Without patent rights, anyone could simply copy another’s invention; consequently, inventors would have no financial incentive for investing the time and energy required to develop new products. Thus, it is important to continue to grant patent rights, or else no one will engage in original development and consequently no new inventions will be forthcoming.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

(A) Financial reward is the only incentive that will be effective in motivating people to develop new inventions.

(B) When an inventor sells patent rights to a manufacturer, the manufacturer makes less total profit on the invention than the inventor does.

(C) Any costs incurred by a typical inventor in applying for patent rights are insignificant in comparison to the financial benefit of holding the patent rights.

(D) Patent rights should be granted only if an inventor’s product is not similar to another invention already covered by patent rights.

(E) The length of a patent right is usually proportional to the costs involved in inventing the product.

Bunuel · Accepted Answer

EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT

The logic here isn’t  horrible , but I do think there’s a gap in the reasoning. The argument is basically, “There will be no financial incentive, therefore there will be no new inventions.” But there’s no premise that says “people only invent for financial gain,” or “people only do things for financial gain.” Without that, the argument is incomplete. So those are both  assumptions  of the argument.

We’re asked to identify an assumption, so this one should be pretty easy.

A) Yeah, this is a pretty good match for our prediction. I’d be happy with this.

B) Definitely not what I’m looking for. I don’t see how this is a missing piece of the argument.

C) No, this isn’t an assumption of the argument. This could be untrue and the argument could still make sense. Patents might be the most expensive investment in Research and Development. Maybe Apple pays its lawyers 75 percent of its revenues. Even if that's true, Apple still benefits from patent law.

D) Irrelevant. The details of who should get patents, and for what, are not at issue here.

E) Again, the mechanics of patent rights are not at issue.

A is our answer, because it’s a missing piece of the argument. If it’s untrue, the logic of the argument is ruined. So it’s a  necessary  assumption of the argument.

Bunuel · Answer

EXPLANATION FROM POWER PREP

Proponents of intellectual property rights, such as the right to patent new inventions, argue that the best way to ensure continued innovation is to maximize the property holders’ (patent holders’) right to benefit financially from their developments. The stimulus takes this argument one step further and makes the extreme claim that original development will cease altogether if there is no financial incentive for inventing new products. For this conclusion to be possible, it must be assumed that nothing other than financial incentive could motivate original development and invention. Answer choice (A) is correct because it shows that financial incentive is singularly necessary.

Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice.  As with any correct answer choice to an Assumption question, this answer choice must pass the Assumption Negation Test. Once negated, the correct answer choice will invalidate the argument. For answer choice (A), if the stimulus is negated it states that financial reward is not the only effective incentive in motivating people to develop new inventions, and the conclusion of the stimulus is no longer correct. That is, some people will continue to engage in original development even if patent rights are not granted because these people will not need a financial incentive to produce new inventions. Because answer choice (A) shows the absolute necessity of financial incentive, it is the correct answer.

Answer choice (B): Some proponents of intellectual property rights are concerned about the relationship between inventors and manufacturers. But the argument in the stimulus is not contingent upon the nature of that relationship. The conclusion is that without patent rights and the financial incentives that they provide no new inventions will be developed. Thus, the conclusion does not depend upon the assumption that inventors make more total profit than manufacturers.

Answer choice (C): This answer choice suggests that the economic benefit to an inventor of obtaining patent rights must be significantly greater than the associated cost. Presumably, this is necessary to justify the investment of time and energy in obtaining a patent. But the conclusion is drawn from the complete absence of financial incentive. Knowledge about the cost of applying for patent rights does not allow for an evaluation of whether the lack of financial incentive would cause original development to cease.

Answer choice (D): The stimulus is not dependent upon the restriction of patent rights to those products which are sufficiently unique. Very similar products may provide enough financial incentive to promote continued innovation and the stimulus only predicts what will occur if there is no financial incentive present.

Answer choice (E): The duration of patent rights and the development cost of new inventions are not directly linked to the financial incentive mentioned in the stimulus. Therefore, the relationship between these two factors need not be known in order to successfully draw the conclusion. Furthermore, if this answer choice is negated and the length of patent rights for inventions that were inexpensive to develop was longer than the length of patent rights for expensive inventions, the conclusion would be unaffected.

heygirl · Answer

This is an assumption questions. Hence, I used the negation technique. Only A seems to weaken the conclusion and make it invalid.

First, locate the conclusion : The conclusion is "it is important to continue to grant patent rights, or else no one will engage in original development and consequently no new inventions will be forthcoming"

A - if we negate "Financial reward is not necessarily an incentive for developingn ew inventions". This is false. The passage clearly mentions that Financial reward is imp. Hence, best answer.

B - Not relevant to the passage.

c - Conclusion does not talk about holding patent right but talks about granting patent rights.

D - Irrelevant

E- Irrelevant

celo700 · Answer

Conclusion: It is important to continue to grant patent rights. Why?
Because, otherwise inventors would have no financial incentive for investing the time and energy. 
So, here it is obvious that the author is assuming that financial incentive is the only incentive for inventing. Nothing other than money motivates these inventors.

As per our prethinking.

Profits of manufacturers is immaterial for us.

This choice is tempting. This is saying that patent costs are insignificant compared to the profits from holding these patents. This option is talking about financial incentive but we don't know if financial incentive is the only motivator.

Nothing about financial incentives. Move on.

Again this option is saying nothing about financial incentive being the only motivator.

XyLan · Answer

Conclusion:  
Thus, it is important to  CONTINUE  to grant patent rights, or else no one will engage in the original development and consequently, no new inventions will be forthcoming.

Pre-Think  : 
 The financial benefit is the  ONLY   Vital/Decisive  FACTOR.
So, here it is obvious that the author is assuming that financial incentive is the ONLY incentive for inventing. Nothing OTHER than financial benefit motivates these inventors.

Answer choice analysis between A and C:   
 (A)  Financial reward is the only incentive that will be effective in motivating people to develop new inventions.
  !A  = Financial reward is NOT the only incentive that will be effective in motivating people to develop new inventions.
 Meaning  - There are  OTHER  factors which   will be   effective in motivating people to develop new inventions.
The negation of A  shatters  the conclusion.

(C)  Any costs incurred by a typical inventor in applying for patent rights are insignificant in comparison to the financial benefit of holding the patent rights.
  !C  = Any costs incurred by a typical inventor in applying for patent rights are  NOT   in significant in comparison to the financial benefit of holding the patent rights.

NOT   in significant can be either
  significant   - costs incurred  >  financial benefit: weakens the conclusion.   
OR
 similar in general   - costs incurred  ~  financial benefit: does NOT necessarily weakens the conclusion.

This option choice  sways  in both directions.
Thus,  NOT   necessarily  shatters the conclusion on  negation .

unraveled · Answer

The development of new inventions is promoted by the granting of patent rights, which restrict the right of anyone but the patent holders to profit from these inventions for a specified period. Without patent rights, anyone could simply copy another’s invention; consequently, inventors would have no financial incentive for investing the time and energy required to develop new products. Thus, it is important to continue to grant patent rights, or else no one will engage in original development and consequently no new inventions will be forthcoming.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

(A)  Financial reward is the only incentive that will be effective  in motivating people to develop new inventions. - CORRECT. If not then new inventions are possible.

(B) When an inventor sells patent rights to a manufacturer,  the manufacturer makes less total profit  on the invention than the inventor does. - WRONG. Irrelevant. Profit is not in scope.

(C) Any  costs incurred  by a typical inventor in applying for patent rights  are insignificant in comparison to the financial benefit  of holding the patent rights. - WRONG. True may be but not a necessary assumption.

(D) Patent rights should be  granted only if an inventor’s product is not similar to another invention  already covered by patent rights. - WRONG. Like B it is not necessarily true for inventions.

(E) The  length of a patent right is usually proportional to the costs involved  in inventing the product. - WRONG. Not likely to be true. Irrelevant at best.

Answer A.

egmat · Answer

Let's break down this argument step by step.

The argument's structure is: 
 Premise 1:  Patent rights give inventors financial incentive to invent.
 Premise 2:  Without patent rights, inventors would have no financial incentive.
 Conclusion:  Without patent rights, NO ONE will engage in original development and NO new inventions will be forthcoming.

Note that  the massive leap in the conclusion. The premises only talk about financial incentive disappearing. But the conclusion says absolutely nobody will invent anything. That's a huge jump! What if someone invents things for fun, curiosity, fame, or the joy of solving problems? The argument completely ignores these possibilities.

Key Insight:  For the conclusion to hold, you MUST assume that financial reward is the ONLY reason anyone would ever invent something.  If even one person might invent for non-financial reasons, the conclusion that 'no new inventions will be forthcoming' falls apart.

This is exactly what Answer A states: Financial reward is the only incentive that will be effective in motivating people to develop new inventions.

You can verify this using the  Negation Test . Negate A: 'Financial reward is NOT the only incentive for inventing.' If other incentives exist, then even without patent rights, some people would still invent things. The conclusion that 'no one will invent' collapses. Since negating A destroys the argument, A is a  necessary assumption .

Answers B through E all deal with side issues (profit distribution, application costs, similarity rules, patent length) that have nothing to do with the core logical gap between 'no financial incentive' and 'no inventions at all.'

Key takeaway:  When an argument says 'X is the only way to achieve Y,' it assumes no alternative path to Y exists. Always watch for extreme words like 'no one,' 'only,' and 'never' — they signal strong assumptions.

Answer: A

The development of new inventions is promoted by the

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

The development of new inventions is promoted by the

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