DataCom, a company that filed many patents last year, was financially

Question

DataCom, a company that filed many patents last year, was financially more successful last year than were its competitors, none of which filed many patents. It is therefore likely that DataCom owed its greater financial success to the fact that it filed many patents last year.

The argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it

(A) presupposes what it sets out to demonstrate about the relationship between the financial success of DataCom’s competitors and the number of patents they filed

(B) confused a company’s financial success with its technological innovativeness

(C) fails to establish whether any one of DataCom’s competitors was financially more successful last year than was any other

(D) gives no reason to exclude the possibility that other differences between DataCom and its competitors accounted for its comparative financial success

(E) applies a generalization to an exceptional case

Mac3921 · Answer

D is the right answer.
There might be some reason other than filing more patents, that contributed to company's success.

Posted from my mobile device

sony1000 · Answer

Why is A not correct? Is not A a good contender to D.

OhMy · Answer

I fell for A too at first.
Im no expert but i try to explain my thoughts.

The argument sets out to suggest that there is a correlation between number of patents files and financial success.
But it never directly presupposes/assumes that in order to make the suggestion. The argument just mentions the lower number of patents filed as a plain fact.
A sounds so good, but actually is not true.

Deadpool3 · Answer

DataCom, a company that filed many patents last year, was financially more successful last year than were its competitors, none of which filed many patents.  It is therefore likely that DataCom owed its greater financial success to the fact that it filed many patents last year.

The argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it

The highlighted portion above is conclusion.

(A) presupposes what it sets out to demonstrate about the relationship between the  financial success of DataCom’s competitors  and  the number of patents they filed   --> It does not presuppose that, but a relation between patents and Financial success in general.

(B) confused a company’s financial success with its technological innovativeness - -> This is little tricky, but if you pay attention you will find that it is not confusing financial success and technological innovativeness(Patent), but cause and effect.

(C) fails to establish whether any one of DataCom’s competitors was financially more successful last year than was any other - -> Irrelevant

(D) gives no reason to exclude the possibility that other differences between DataCom and its competitors accounted for its comparative financial success - -> It presupposes that more patent lets to greater financial success, but there could be numerous other reasons.
 
(E) applies a generalization to an exceptional case  --> Out of scope, as it is not stated that it is an exceptional case

Kukee · Answer

I will go with D. 
The question stem basically argues that since Datacom filed more patents,it emerged more successful than any other. 
Now,to weaken this,we need an option that suggests patent was not ONLY responsible for the success.

A is a good choice but since we need to compare its success with other companies (as given in stem),we cannot choose this.
B is irrelevant as technology is not talked about.
C again is irrelevant because last year data is of no use here.
D is exactly we needed as discussed above(in the starting)
E is absolutely out of scope.

Hope it helped:)

unraveled · Answer

DataCom, a company that filed many patents last year, was financially more successful last year than were its competitors, none of which filed many patents. It is therefore likely that DataCom owed its greater financial success to the fact that it filed many patents last year.

The argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it

(A) presupposes what it  sets out to demonstrate about the relationship between  the financial success of DataCom’s competitors and the  number of patents they filed  - WRONG. There is no specific number mentioned.

(B)  confused  a company’s financial success with its technological innovativeness - WRONG. Not confusion since its a clear claim made.

(C) fails to establish  whether any one of DataCom’s competitors was financially more successful last year than  was any other - WRONG. Not in the scope of conclusion.

(D)  gives no reason to exclude the possibility that other differences between DataCom and its competitors accounted  for its comparative financial success - CORRECT. Why only patents mattered here? There can be other possibilities.

(E) applies a  generalization  to an  exceptional case  - WRONG. No generalization no exceptional case.

Answer D.

egmat · Answer

Hi! Let me help clarify why   (A) is incorrect and (D) is the right answer  .

The key distinction:

(A)  claims the argument " presupposes " its conclusion - meaning it assumes what it's trying to prove (circular reasoning).

But look at what the argument actually does:
 1.  Observes: DataCom filed many patents AND was financially successful
 2.  Observes: Competitors filed few patents AND were less successful 
 3.  Concludes:  Therefore , the patents likely caused the success

This isn't circular - it's making an inference from observations. The problem is it's a  bad inference !

(D)  correctly identifies the real flaw: The argument jumps from correlation to causation without considering  other possible explanations . Maybe DataCom succeeded because of:
- Better management
- Superior products
- Stronger brand
- Better market timing

Remember: 
- Circular reasoning = assuming your conclusion  (NOT happening here) 
- Correlation ≠ Causation = seeing two things together and assuming one caused the other  (THIS is happening)

Therefore ,   (D) is correct   because it points out the argument's failure to consider alternative explanations for DataCom's success.

Hope this helps! 😊

DataCom, a company that filed many patents last year, was financially

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

DataCom, a company that filed many patents last year, was financially

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