Answer : D
Explanation:
Understanding the Argument:
• Conclusion: The move to patent computer programs is wrong and should be stopped.
• Premises:
1. The patent system was originally designed solely to protect small-time inventors from exploitation.
2. The patent system was not intended to give large corporations control over a methodology.
3. Any computer program is merely the implementation of a methodology.
Identifying the Assumption:
The argument connects the premises to the conclusion by implying that patenting computer programs would give large corporations control over methodologies, which contradicts the original intent of the patent system.
For the argument to hold, it depends on the assumption that:
• It’s inappropriate for large corporations to hold patents on implementations of methodologies (i.e., computer programs).
This assumption fills the gap between the premises and the conclusion, allowing the argument to assert that patenting computer programs is against the purpose of the patent system and should be stopped.
Analyzing the Options:
• (A) Computer programs should be developed not only by large corporations but by small-time inventors as well.
• This is not necessary for the argument. The argument focuses on the purpose of the patent system, not on who should develop programs.
• (B) Implementing a methodology always requires less creative effort than does true invention.
• The argument does not hinge on the level of creative effort but on the nature of computer programs as implementations of methodologies.
• (C) The issue of whether or not to patent computer programs presents the patent system with problems that have never before arisen.
• Irrelevant. The uniqueness of the problem is not addressed in the argument.
• (D) Large corporations should not hold patents for implementations of methodologies.
• Correct. This is the assumption the argument depends on. If large corporations should hold such patents, the argument falls apart.
• (E) Small-time inventors who support the move to patent computer programs act contrary to their own best interests.
• This is not necessary for the argument. The argument doesn’t discuss the actions of small-time inventors regarding the move.
Negation Test:
Applying the negation test to option (D):
• Negated: Large corporations should hold patents for implementations of methodologies.
If this is true, the argument that patenting computer programs is wrong because it gives large corporations control over methodologies would not hold, thus destroying the argument. Therefore, option (D) is an assumption on which the argument depends.