GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 22 Jun 2018, 19:36

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# When a company refuses to allow other companies to produce

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics
Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 29 Jul 2012
Posts: 172
GMAT Date: 11-18-2012
Re: When a company refuses to allow other companies to produce [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Jan 2013, 20:05
i have chosen 'A', but answer is no doubt 'B',
sidhu your explanation was good, finally i got: "Why not A"

Posted from my mobile device
_________________

Thriving for CHANGE

Manager
Joined: 28 Dec 2012
Posts: 108
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Finance
WE: Engineering (Energy and Utilities)
Re: When a company refuses to allow other companies to produce [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Jan 2013, 03:59
If you negate A, the conclusion that falls apart would be that prices shoot up. ( alternatives will ensure that prices not shoot up and fair price maintained.)
But this is not the conclusion. this argument doesnt talk about price mechanism. It talks about consumer suffering because of patents.
A, as an assumption supports this conclusion as well but not directly compared to B. hence B is better choice. Always choose option that "directly"
or more closely addresses the real conclusion/theme of the argument.

Hope this helps

Kudos if u agree!!!
_________________

Impossibility is a relative concept!!

Manager
Joined: 12 Jan 2013
Posts: 57
Location: United States (NY)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V47
GPA: 3.89
Re: When a company refuses to allow other companies to produce [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Feb 2013, 19:55
This is a REALLY tricky question. All five answers can be supported. The real question is, what is "the argument"?

When a company refuses to allow other companies to produce patented technology, the consumer invariably loses.
This statement is highly questionable. For example, Apple Inc. does not allow its competitors to produce i-Phones and i-Pads, and it does charge exorbitant prices. Yet we cannot say that the consumers necessarily lose, because consumers also care about quality. Thus, in a sense, this statement presupposes E (consumers care more about price than about quality).

In fact, the very existence of the system of patenting suggests that patents are good for the consumer. If the patent system did not allow Apple to charge exorbitant prices, there would, arguably, be no i-Pods and no i-Phones. Patents incentivise companies to innovate so they can later charge exorbitant prices.

The company that holds the patent can charge exorbitant prices because there is no direct competition.
This statement is highly questionable. McDonald's is the only one producing Big Mac's, and there is no direct competition, but there is indirect competition (other hamburgers ). Thus, McDonald's cannot charge exorbitant prices.

This statement thus presupposes A and D. If other companies could produce similar unpatented technology, the company in question would not be able to charge exorbitant prices. For example, companies other than Apple can produce other smartphones, and the price for i-Phones will necessarily keep going down because of that. However, if you know the story with the patent that Singer used for his sewing machine, you would see how carefully designed patents actually allow the company to charge exorbitant prices for much longer. Thus, here (A) is clearly an assumption. The same can be said about (D): if the consumers cannot tell the difference between patented technology and inferior imitations, patenting company would not be able to charge exorbitant prices.

When the patent expires, other companies are free to manufacture the technology and prices fall.
This is just common sense; no assumptions.

Companies should therefore allow other manufacturers to license patented technology.
Note the "therefore". In reality, this is a completely ridiculous conclusion. Try to tell Apple they they should license their i-Phones so others can produce them. Why?! Well, (B) offers a nice explanation: because companies should act in the best interest of the consumer.

In a sense, (C) can also be considered an assumption. From a practical point of view, if there is no problem, then there is nothing to argue about. Thus, if this issue was raised, then, chances are, somebody thinks that too many patents are granted to selfish companies. However, "too many" is highly subjective, and thus looks like a poor answer.

Overall, I support (B). This is because (A), (D), (E) are assumptions underlying the premises, but only (B) is an assumption underlying the actual argument, the actual inference. If it is given that the company that holds the patent can charge exorbitant prices, then (A) is no longer an assumption.

I think the point is to distinguish, which assumptions are needed for the premises vs. which assumptions are needed for the implication. For example, if you negate (A) and add it to the premises, you get a contradiction. If you add (B) to the premises, it strengthens the implication; if you add not (B) to the argument, it weakens the implication. Note that if you add (C) to the premises, it somewhat strengthens the argument, and if you add not (C) to the premises, it somewhat weakens the argument, but not as obviously as with (B).

In a sense, (C) suggests (B); but (B) is more explicit.
_________________

Sergey Orshanskiy, Ph.D.
I tutor in NYC: http://www.wyzant.com/Tutors/NY/New-York/7948121/#ref=1RKFOZ

GMAT Tutor
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 1345
Re: When a company refuses to allow other companies to produce [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Feb 2013, 07:57
I guess this question generated a lot of discussion! When evaluating answer choice A, it's important to understand that, when the stem says the "consumer invariably loses" if companies don't share patents, that is a *premise* of the argument - it's a fact, and cannot be wrong. So whether other companies are able to imitate patented technology makes no difference; the premise that consumers will lose must still be true. Answer A is just a trap answer; it is only tempting if you're trying to disprove one of the premises of the argument, and you are always doing something wrong if you're trying to attack a premise in a CR assumption or weaken question.

The argument essentially says: "Companies with exclusive patents charge high prices. So companies should share their patents." There's a massive gap in that argument - *why* should companies share patents? We're assuming there's something wrong with companies charging high prices. That is why B is the right answer.
_________________

GMAT Tutor in Toronto

If you are looking for online GMAT math tutoring, or if you are interested in buying my advanced Quant books and problem sets, please contact me at ianstewartgmat at gmail.com

Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8102
Location: Pune, India
Re: When a company refuses to allow other companies to produce [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Aug 2013, 23:24
3
1
nitya34 wrote:
When a company refuses to allow other companies to produce patented technology, the consumer invariably loses. The company that holds the patent can charge exorbitant prices because there is no direct competition. When the patent expires, other companies are free to manufacture the technology and prices fall. Companies should therefore allow other manufacturers to license patented technology.

The argument above presupposes which of the following?

(A) Companies cannot find legal ways to produce technology similar to patented technology.
(B) Companies have an obligation to act in the best interest of the consumer.
(C) Too many patents are granted to companies that are unwilling to share them.
(D) The consumer can tell the difference between patented technology and inferior imitations.
(E) Consumers care more about price than about quality.

Spoiler: :: OA
B

Responding to a pm: Use of Assumption Negation Technique (ANT) here.
The point of ANT is that you negate the option and see if the conclusion can hold. If it can hold then the option is not an assumption. If the conclusion cannot hold on negating the option, then the option must be an assumption. Since the doubt is between A and B, I will handle these two options.

Conclusion: Companies should allow others to produce patented tech so that consumers don't lose.

(A) Companies cannot find legal ways to produce technology similar to patented technology.
Negate: Companies can find legal ways to produce technology similar to patented tech.
Can our conclusion still hold? Can we say that companies should allow others to produce patented tech so that consumers don't lose? Sure, it can still hold. Even if other companies can find legal ways to produce similar tech, the original tech may be far better. Also, the legal methods may be much more expensive so customers may still suffer, we don't know. Point is, companies should allow others to produce patented tech because the consumers may suffer otherwise. The conclusion CAN still hold.

(B) Companies have an obligation to act in the best interest of the consumer.
Negate: Companies do not have an obligation to act in the best interest of the consumer.
Now can our conclusion hold? Can we say that companies should allow others to produce patented tech so that consumers don't lose? No. Companies have no obligations to the consumer. They don't care about the best interest of the consumer. This means they don't need to allow other companies to produce patented tech because they anyway don't care about consumer interests. Hence our conclusion cannot hold.

_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for \$199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Intern
Status: Engineering consultant
Joined: 13 Jul 2014
Posts: 17
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V32
Re: When a company refuses to allow other companies to produce [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Oct 2014, 09:14
Technext wrote:
When a company refuses to allow other companies to produce patented technology, the consumer invariably loses. The company that holds the patent can charge exorbitant prices because there is no direct competition. When the patent expires, other companies are free to manufacture the technology and prices fall. Companies should therefore allow other manufacturers to license patented technology.

The argument above presupposes which of the following?

Explanation:

Conclusion: Companies should therefore allow other manufacturers to license patented technology.

How did we arrive at this conclusion? What if the companies don’t allow licensing of patented technology? If they don’t, consumers will suffer. But why should the companies really consider consumers?
-----------------------
A. Companies cannot find legal ways to produce technology similar to patented technology.
---> Does not address the issue raised above.

B. because Companies have an obligation to act in the best interest of the consumer. ---> This option answers the last question, thus, pointing to the presupposition involved.

C. Too many patents are granted to companies that are unwilling to share them. ---> Not necessarily true for arriving at the argument.

D. The consumer can tell the difference between patented technology and inferior imitations.
---> Irrelevant. Does not address the issue raised above.

E. Consumers care more about price than about quality. ---> Irrelevant
-----------------------

I think it should be option B.

Regards,
Technext

Good explanation.
I feel B is correct only if there would have a last sentence about license.
If B is correct then it s contradicting Argument itself. If 'Companies have an obligation to act in the best interest of the consumer' then why they would increase prices exorbitantly ?
Author is conforming that companies can charge exorbitant prices. If they really care for consumer then companies won't increase price irrespective of competition.

Correct me if i am wrong.
Thanks
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8102
Location: Pune, India
Re: When a company refuses to allow other companies to produce [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Oct 2014, 21:25
Rudranket wrote:
Technext wrote:
When a company refuses to allow other companies to produce patented technology, the consumer invariably loses. The company that holds the patent can charge exorbitant prices because there is no direct competition. When the patent expires, other companies are free to manufacture the technology and prices fall. Companies should therefore allow other manufacturers to license patented technology.

The argument above presupposes which of the following?

Explanation:

Conclusion: Companies should therefore allow other manufacturers to license patented technology.

How did we arrive at this conclusion? What if the companies don’t allow licensing of patented technology? If they don’t, consumers will suffer. But why should the companies really consider consumers?
-----------------------
A. Companies cannot find legal ways to produce technology similar to patented technology.
---> Does not address the issue raised above.

B. because Companies have an obligation to act in the best interest of the consumer. ---> This option answers the last question, thus, pointing to the presupposition involved.

C. Too many patents are granted to companies that are unwilling to share them. ---> Not necessarily true for arriving at the argument.

D. The consumer can tell the difference between patented technology and inferior imitations.
---> Irrelevant. Does not address the issue raised above.

E. Consumers care more about price than about quality. ---> Irrelevant
-----------------------

I think it should be option B.

Regards,
Technext

Good explanation.
I feel B is correct only if there would have a last sentence about license.
If B is correct then it s contradicting Argument itself. If 'Companies have an obligation to act in the best interest of the consumer' then why they would increase prices exorbitantly ?
Author is conforming that companies can charge exorbitant prices. If they really care for consumer then companies won't increase price irrespective of competition.

Correct me if i am wrong.
Thanks

(B) doesn't contradict the argument. (B) says that companies should act in the best interest of the consumer. It doesn't say whether the companies do actually act in the best interests of the consumer. The argument says that since the consumer loses when the company doesn't let other manufacturers make patented products so the company should let other manufacturers make. So the argument is assuming that the companies care about consumers' loss.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for \$199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Manager
Joined: 22 Aug 2014
Posts: 174
Re: When a company refuses to allow other companies to produce [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 May 2015, 04:36
nitya34 wrote:
When a company refuses to allow other companies to produce patented technology, the consumer invariably loses. The company that holds the patent can charge exorbitant prices because there is no direct competition. When the patent expires, other companies are free to manufacture the technology and prices fall. Companies should therefore allow other manufacturers to license patented technology.

The argument above presupposes which of the following?

(A) Companies cannot find legal ways to produce technology similar to patented technology.
(B) Companies have an obligation to act in the best interest of the consumer.
(C) Too many patents are granted to companies that are unwilling to share them.
(D) The consumer can tell the difference between patented technology and inferior imitations.
(E) Consumers care more about price than about quality.

Spoiler: :: OA
B

B is best.NEGATE d.
Companies do have an obligation to act in the best interest of the consumer.-destroys argument(Companies should therefore allow other manufacturers to license patented technology)
Senior Manager
Joined: 21 May 2015
Posts: 259
Concentration: Operations, Strategy
GMAT 1: 750 Q50 V41
Re: When a company refuses to allow other companies to produce [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 May 2015, 08:23
B
Conclusion - Companies should therefore allow other manufacturers to license patented technology.
Premises - Companies do not allow use of patented products thus customers suffer
Assumption - Company should look into benefits for customers
_________________

Apoorv

I realize that i cannot change the world....But i can play a part

Director
Joined: 23 Jan 2013
Posts: 598
Schools: Cambridge'16
Re: When a company refuses to allow other companies to produce [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Jun 2015, 00:22
Premise (interm conclusion):
When a company refuses to allow other companies to produce patented technology, the consumer invariably loses

Conclusion (final):
Companies should therefore allow other manufacturers to license patented technology.

Prethink: If consumer loses the company should

B fits
Director
Status: I don't stop when I'm Tired,I stop when I'm done
Joined: 11 May 2014
Posts: 553
GPA: 2.81
WE: Business Development (Real Estate)
When a company refuses to allow other companies to produce [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Jul 2016, 06:06
Top Contributor
nitya34 wrote:
When a company refuses to allow other companies to produce patented technology, the consumer invariably loses. The company that holds the patent can charge exorbitant prices because there is no direct competition. When the patent expires, other companies are free to manufacture the technology and prices fall. Companies should therefore allow other manufacturers to license patented technology.

The argument above presupposes which of the following?

(A) Companies cannot find legal ways to produce technology similar to patented technology.
(B) Companies have an obligation to act in the best interest of the consumer.
(C) Too many patents are granted to companies that are unwilling to share them.
(D) The consumer can tell the difference between patented technology and inferior imitations.
(E) Consumers care more about price than about quality.

Spoiler: :: OA
B

There are many possible presupposes,so I followed the process of elimination to get the question Correct

When a company refuses to allow other companies to produce patented technology, the consumer invariably loses. The company that holds the patent can charge exorbitant prices because there is no direct competition. When the patent expires, other companies are free to manufacture the technology and prices fall. Companies should therefore allow other manufacturers to license patented technology.

The argument above presupposes which of the following?

(A) Companies cannot find legal ways to produce technology similar to patented technology. .......>Outside the scope of the argument
(B) Companies have an obligation to act in the best interest of the consumer. ...........>Correct.it is necessarily assumed to hold the argument valid/true
(C) Too many patents are granted to companies that are unwilling to share them. ........>New information that is outside the scope of the argument
(D) The consumer can tell the difference between patented technology and inferior imitations. ......>New information that is outside the scope of the argument
(E) Consumers care more about price than about quality. ........> Never discussed about what consumers care

_________________

Md. Abdur Rakib

Please Press +1 Kudos,If it helps
Sentence Correction-Collection of Ron Purewal's "elliptical construction/analogies" for SC Challenges

Senior Manager
Joined: 24 Oct 2016
Posts: 294
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, International Business
Schools: IIMB
GMAT 1: 550 Q42 V28
GPA: 3.96
WE: Human Resources (Retail Banking)
Re: When a company refuses to allow other companies to produce [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Mar 2017, 04:28
after rethinking i got know how option A is irrelevant or does not affect to the conclusion at all
specially thanks to the man babyif19
Senior SC Moderator
Joined: 14 Nov 2016
Posts: 1314
Location: Malaysia
Re: When a company refuses to allow other companies to produce [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Apr 2017, 20:12
nitya34 wrote:
When a company refuses to allow other companies to produce patented technology, the consumer invariably loses. The company that holds the patent can charge exorbitant prices because there is no direct competition. When the patent expires, other companies are free to manufacture the technology and prices fall. Companies should therefore allow other manufacturers to license patented technology.

The argument above presupposes which of the following?

(A) Companies cannot find legal ways to produce technology similar to patented technology.
(B) Companies have an obligation to act in the best interest of the consumer.
(C) Too many patents are granted to companies that are unwilling to share them.
(D) The consumer can tell the difference between patented technology and inferior imitations.
(E) Consumers care more about price than about quality.

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

The conclusion of the argument is that companies should allow other manufacturers to license patented technology. The basis for that claim is that not doing so keeps prices high and harms the consumer. We're asked what the argument assumes ("presupposes") in drawing its conclusion. The correct answer will fill the logic gap between the idea that keeping prices high harms the consumer and that companies should allow other manufacturers to license patented technology. The conclusion is based on the assumption that companies have an obligation of some kind to do what's best for the consumer.

(A) This does not address the moral obligation to the consumers (i.e. “should”) of the companies who produced the patented technology, the main point of the conclusion. Furthremore, even if companies could find legal ways to produce similar technologies, the patented technology could still command exorbitant prices, thereby harming the consumer.

(B) CORRECT. The conclusion only makes sense if companies have an obligation to act in the best interest of the customer, as this choice states.

(C) This generally follows along with the author's claim, but we are not required to assume this in order to reach the conclusion that companies who are granted patents are obligated to look out for the best interests of their customers.

(D) This addresses a tangential issue of whether or not consumers could notice the difference between a new patented technology and a possible imitation. This does not address the core issue of the obligation to the consumer.

(E) This does not address the obligation of the companies toward the consumers, or indeed the companies at all.
_________________

"Be challenged at EVERY MOMENT."

“Strength doesn’t come from what you can do. It comes from overcoming the things you once thought you couldn’t.”

"Each stage of the journey is crucial to attaining new heights of knowledge."

Rules for posting in verbal forum | Please DO NOT post short answer in your post!

Director
Joined: 26 Oct 2016
Posts: 666
Location: United States
Concentration: Marketing, International Business
Schools: HBS '19
GMAT 1: 770 Q51 V44
GPA: 4
WE: Education (Education)
Re: When a company refuses to allow other companies to produce [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Apr 2017, 09:52
The premise is about X: The CONSUMER loses when a company refuses to allow other companies to produce patented technology.
The conclusion is about Y: COMPANIES should therefore allow other manufacturers to license patented technology.

The assumption is that X is linked to Y: that, because the CONSUMER loses, COMPANIES should change what they are doing -- even though these companies can charge EXORBITANT prices. Why should a company that can charge exorbitant prices change its business model? What's bad for the consumer clearly is GOOD for the company.

Answer choice B exposes the assumption:

For the conclusion here to be valid, it MUST BE TRUE THAT companies have an obligation to act in the best interest of the consumer.

If this answer choice is negated -- if companies DO NOT have an obligation to act in the best interest of the consumer -- then they have no reason to license patented technology, invalidating the conclusion of the passage.

The correct answer is B
_________________

Thanks & Regards,
Anaira Mitch

Intern
Joined: 07 Sep 2016
Posts: 4
Re: When a company refuses to allow other companies to produce [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 May 2017, 09:57
Nice question:
Premise : Patented technology if allowed to be used bring profits for the company who has the patent. Price is high for customers
When patent expires price is low for customers. But why company who has the patent suffer this drop of revenue?
Conclusion: Company should allow its patent to be used.
Assumption: Company should go from cycle of profits to loss only as they have obligation towards customers.

Clearly option b).
Intern
Joined: 24 Oct 2016
Posts: 40
Location: India
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V38
GPA: 3.61
Re: When a company refuses to allow other companies to produce [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 May 2017, 02:03
Hi,
If we negate option A: Companies can find legal ways to produce technology similar to patented technology. So, since there will be no monopoly, consumers will not have to pay high prices and hence licensing of patented technology will not be a requirement.

A passes the negation test, why is it still incorrect?
Manager
Joined: 21 Jun 2015
Posts: 51
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, General Management
GMAT 1: 660 Q50 V30
GPA: 3.32
WE: Programming (Computer Software)
Re: When a company refuses to allow other companies to produce [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Aug 2017, 11:17
Here, conclusion is : Companies should therefore allow other manufacturers to license patented technology.
Only B supports this conclusion
VP
Status: Learning
Joined: 20 Dec 2015
Posts: 1161
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Marketing
GMAT 1: 670 Q48 V36
GRE 1: 314 Q157 V157
GPA: 3.4
WE: Manufacturing and Production (Manufacturing)
Re: When a company refuses to allow other companies to produce [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Aug 2017, 23:20
Imo B
The only reason the argument went at length to cite the practise by the companies as bad is that the consumer is not benefitted.
So you see B is our assumption.

Sent from my ONE E1003 using GMAT Club Forum mobile app
_________________

Please give kudos if you found my answers useful

Joined: 28 Mar 2017
Posts: 1022
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Technology
GMAT 1: 730 Q49 V41
GPA: 4
Re: When a company refuses to allow other companies to produce [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Aug 2017, 11:25
When a company refuses to allow other companies to produce patented technology, the consumer invariably loses. The company that holds the patent can charge exorbitant prices because there is no direct competition. When the patent expires, other companies are free to manufacture the technology and prices fall. Companies should therefore allow other manufacturers to license patented technology.

The argument above presupposes which of the following?

(A) Companies cannot find legal ways to produce technology similar to patented technology. -This is similar to what is given in the passage. We already know that there is no direct competition. Incorrect.
(B) Companies have an obligation to act in the best interest of the consumer. -Correct. Since there is an obligation to act in interest of the consumer, licensing of the patent should be allowed.
(C) Too many patents are granted to companies that are unwilling to share them. -Irrelevant
(D) The consumer can tell the difference between patented technology and inferior imitations. -Irrelevant
(E) Consumers care more about price than about quality. -Irrelevant
_________________

Kudos if my post helps!

Long And A Fruitful Journey - V21 to V41; If I can, So Can You!!

My study resources:
1. Useful Formulae, Concepts and Tricks-Quant
2. e-GMAT's ALL SC Compilation
3. LSAT RC compilation
4. Actual LSAT CR collection by Broal
5. QOTD RC (Carcass)
6. Challange OG RC
7. GMAT Prep Challenge RC

Re: When a company refuses to allow other companies to produce   [#permalink] 30 Aug 2017, 11:25

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3   [ 59 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by

# When a company refuses to allow other companies to produce

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.