It is currently 22 Oct 2017, 23:52

### 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

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 12 Mar 2012
Posts: 164

Kudos [?]: 61 [0], given: 4

Location: India
Concentration: Technology, General Management
GMAT Date: 07-23-2012
WE: Programming (Telecommunications)
Re: When a company refuses to allow other companies to produce [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Jun 2012, 10:19
I got B and i think it is the OA.
_________________

FOCUS..this is all I need!

Ku-Do!

Kudos [?]: 61 [0], given: 4

Manager
Joined: 02 Jan 2011
Posts: 192

Kudos [?]: 62 [0], given: 22

Re: When a company refuses to allow other companies to produce [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Jun 2012, 01:31
Here it is assumed that companies are more interested in serving the customers than for the profits. The main aim of the arguement is to provide customers with affordable products that use the patented technology.

(A) Companies cannot find legal ways to produce technology similar to patented technology. - Already mentioned in the argument that companies with patents do not allow others to produce the technology. Though there is a way, they restrict the mass production by other manufacturers. - Incorrect
(B) Companies have an obligation to act in the best interest of the consumer. - The thought of allowing other manufacturers to produce patented technology shows that companies are obligated to act in the best interest of the consumers. - Correct
(C) Too many patents are granted to companies that are unwilling to share them. - No where mentioned in the arguement - Incorrect
(D) The consumer can tell the difference between patented technology and inferior imitations. - Out of scope - Incorrect
(E) Consumers care more about price than about quality - The arguement presents the manufacturers perspective rather than the consumer behavior - Irrelevant - Incorrect

Kudos [?]: 62 [0], given: 22

Intern
Joined: 02 Oct 2010
Posts: 20

Kudos [?]: 18 [0], given: 3

When a company refuses to allow other companies to produce [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Dec 2012, 19:20
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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.

Will provide the OA after some explanations.

Last edited by krackgmat on 01 Jan 2013, 13:18, edited 1 time in total.

Kudos [?]: 18 [0], given: 3

VP
Status: Been a long time guys...
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 1378

Kudos [?]: 1681 [0], given: 62

Location: United States (NY)
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
GPA: 3.75

### Show Tags

31 Dec 2012, 21:10
krackgmat 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.

Will provide the OA after some explanations.

Honestly speaking, I felt the problem to be of 620-640ish level.
Anyways, the conclusion is "Companies should therefore allow other manufacturers to license patented technology." On allowing the other manufacturers to license patented technology, the prices will fall and the consumers can easily have an an access on the by-products of the technology. Here the word "should" plays the vital role.
Hence indirectly, it is stated that companies have an obligation to act in the best interest of the consumer.
+1B
_________________

Kudos [?]: 1681 [0], given: 62

Intern
Joined: 15 Dec 2012
Posts: 5

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

Schools: AGSM '15

### Show Tags

31 Dec 2012, 23:26
krackgmat 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.

Will provide the OA after some explanations.

IMO A is the best choice.

A) if companies cannot find an alternative to patented technology, then they have no other choice than to license the technology otherwise only the patent holder can use it. This choice fully supports the argument and conclusion.

B doesn't mention whether the obligation to act in the best interest of the consumer relates to the usage of patented technology.

C is irrelevant because the argument isn't about quantity.

D is irrelevant

E is irrelevant

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

Director
Status: Final Countdown
Joined: 17 Mar 2010
Posts: 535

Kudos [?]: 353 [0], given: 75

Location: India
GPA: 3.82
WE: Account Management (Retail Banking)
Re: When a company refuses to allow other companies to produce [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Jan 2013, 07:14
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.

[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
B

Premise-The company which hold the patents causes the price hike, by not allowing other companies to manufacture patented technology.
Conclusion-Companies should allow other manufacturers to seek license to manufacture the patented technology.
(if they do so then the Price would not hike and the customers would not suffer)

(B) wins
_________________

" Make more efforts "
Press Kudos if you liked my post

Kudos [?]: 353 [0], given: 75

Intern
Joined: 14 Jan 2011
Posts: 3

Kudos [?]: 1 [1], given: 5

Re: When a company refuses to allow other companies to produce [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Jan 2013, 11:28
1
KUDOS
krackgmat 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.

Will provide the OA after some explanations.

My take will be Option B.

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

If we suggest a company to allow other manufacturers to license patent despite of the fact that the monopoly of the company from the market will be lost, then the only reason is the Consumers are the ones for which Companies care and are obligated to. Hence the unsaid assumption here is "Companies have an obligation to act in the best interest of the consumer"

Kudos [?]: 1 [1], given: 5

Manager
Joined: 29 Jul 2012
Posts: 185

Kudos [?]: 118 [0], given: 23

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

Kudos [?]: 118 [0], given: 23

Manager
Joined: 28 Dec 2012
Posts: 110

Kudos [?]: 74 [0], given: 90

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!!

Kudos [?]: 74 [0], given: 90

Manager
Joined: 12 Jan 2013
Posts: 57

Kudos [?]: 73 [0], given: 13

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

Kudos [?]: 73 [0], given: 13

GMAT Tutor
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 1339

Kudos [?]: 1959 [0], given: 6

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

Kudos [?]: 1959 [0], given: 6

Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 7677

Kudos [?]: 17398 [3], given: 232

Location: Pune, India
Re: When a company refuses to allow other companies to produce [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Aug 2013, 23:24
3
KUDOS
Expert's post
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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.

[Reveal] 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

Kudos [?]: 17398 [3], given: 232

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10106

Kudos [?]: 264 [0], given: 0

Re: When a company refuses to allow other companies to produce [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Sep 2014, 05:14
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Kudos [?]: 264 [0], given: 0

Intern
Status: Engineering consultant
Joined: 13 Jul 2014
Posts: 18

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 19

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.

-----------------------

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

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 19

Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 7677

Kudos [?]: 17398 [0], given: 232

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.

-----------------------

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

Kudos [?]: 17398 [0], given: 232

Manager
Joined: 22 Aug 2014
Posts: 190

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 49

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.

[Reveal] 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)

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 49

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10106

Kudos [?]: 264 [0], given: 0

Re: When a company refuses to allow other companies to produce [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 May 2015, 00:24
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Kudos [?]: 264 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 21 May 2015
Posts: 266

Kudos [?]: 132 [0], given: 57

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

Kudos [?]: 132 [0], given: 57

Director
Joined: 23 Jan 2013
Posts: 601

Kudos [?]: 22 [0], given: 41

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

Kudos [?]: 22 [0], given: 41

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10106

Kudos [?]: 264 [0], given: 0

Re: When a company refuses to allow other companies to produce [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Jul 2016, 23:19
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Kudos [?]: 264 [0], given: 0

Re: When a company refuses to allow other companies to produce   [#permalink] 20 Jul 2016, 23:19

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3   4    Next  [ 69 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by