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

It is currently 15 Nov 2018, 23:41

Close

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel
Events & Promotions in November
PrevNext
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
28293031123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
2526272829301
Open Detailed Calendar
  • Free GMAT Strategy Webinar

     November 17, 2018

     November 17, 2018

     07:00 AM PST

     09:00 AM PST

    Nov. 17, 7 AM PST. Aiming to score 760+? Attend this FREE session to learn how to Define your GMAT Strategy, Create your Study Plan and Master the Core Skills to excel on the GMAT.
  • GMATbuster's Weekly GMAT Quant Quiz # 9

     November 17, 2018

     November 17, 2018

     09:00 AM PST

     11:00 AM PST

    Join the Quiz Saturday November 17th, 9 AM PST. The Quiz will last approximately 2 hours. Make sure you are on time or you will be at a disadvantage.

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

Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 04 Jan 2008
Posts: 775
When a company refuses to allow other companies to produce  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Mar 2009, 02:55
12
47
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  75% (hard)

Question Stats:

50% (01:32) correct 50% (01:48) wrong based on 3090 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

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

_________________

http://gmatclub.com/forum/math-polygons-87336.html
http://gmatclub.com/forum/competition-for-the-best-gmat-error-log-template-86232.html

Most Helpful Community Reply
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 10 Jan 2009
Posts: 104
Re: CR-Manhattan-Patented technology  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Mar 2009, 02:52
21
5
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
_________________

+++ Believe me, it doesn't take much of an effort to underline SC questions. Just try it out. +++
+++ Please tell me why other options are wrong. +++

~~~ The only way to get smarter is to play a smarter opponent. ~~~

General Discussion
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 02 Nov 2008
Posts: 238
Re: CR-Manhattan-Patented technology  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Mar 2009, 22:30
2
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


I agree with the above analysis. In addition with assumption questions you must always focus on the conclusion (Companies should therefore allow other manufacturers to license patented technology)....doing so clearly eliminates A.
Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 04 Jan 2008
Posts: 775
Re: CR-Manhattan-Patented technology  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Mar 2009, 07:39
2
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.
_________________

http://gmatclub.com/forum/math-polygons-87336.html
http://gmatclub.com/forum/competition-for-the-best-gmat-error-log-template-86232.html

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 26 Nov 2009
Posts: 123
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: CR-Manhattan-Patented technology  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Jan 2010, 06:03
1
I chose A before seeing the official answer explanations and I still feel A as the best choice so I may be not learning anything here

if you take the whole argument, The whole argument will fail if companies find legal ways to produce technology similar to patented technology.

so the argument presupposes choice A.

but if take the conclusion alone

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

then for this conclusion alone choice b seems to be valid.
(B) Companies have an obligation to act in the best interest of the consumer.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 29 Jul 2009
Posts: 270
Re: CR-Manhattan-Patented technology  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Jan 2010, 06:46
2
silasaaa2 wrote:
I chose A before seeing the official answer explanations and I still feel A as the best choice so I may be not learning anything here

if you take the whole argument, The whole argument will fail if companies find legal ways to produce technology similar to patented technology.

so the argument presupposes choice A.

but if take the conclusion alone

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

then for this conclusion alone choice b seems to be valid.
(B) Companies have an obligation to act in the best interest of the consumer.


keep in mind that an assumption is an unstated premise that allows the conclusion to be logically drawn from the premises.

if you negate and add option A to the argument, you can still draw the conclusion. Thus, A cannot be correct. I think this is an important lesson to learn from this problem.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 20 Oct 2009
Posts: 96
Schools: MIT LGO (Admitted), Harvard (Admitted))
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: CR-Manhattan-Patented technology  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Jan 2010, 22:42
11
5
Tough question at the first glance, but if you draw out the logic - it's pretty easy the answer should be B.

Company holds patents => Consumer lose ( high price) 1)
Patent expires => other manufacturer can produce => price drops ( relief on consumer loss)2)
1), 2)=> company should allow others to license patented technology

There is a gap here - why would company drop the profit that will be generated by the high price and by the monoplay? Because the company actually cares about the consumers.

A seems relevant but certainly not a necessary assumption.


(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.
_________________

Dream the impossible and do the incredible.

Live. Love. Laugh.

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 07 Jul 2010
Posts: 61
Location: Hanoi, Vietnam
Re: CR-Manhattan-Patented technology  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 Jan 2011, 06:51
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. => Correct, If companies can find other way to produce technology similar to patented technology, then they will take it. The argument is then weakened.
(B) Companies have an obligation to act in the best interest of the consumer.=> the Word " obligation" makes this choice wrong.
(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

_________________

Hung M.Tran
Faculty of Banking and Finance,
National Economics University of Vietnam


Follow me on Twitter : http://twitter.com/AndyTranHung

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 02 Jan 2011
Posts: 146
Re: When a company refuses to allow other companies to produce  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Jun 2012, 00:31
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
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 14 Jan 2011
Posts: 3
Re: When a company refuses to allow other companies to produce  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Jan 2013, 10:28
1
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.
e. Consumers care more about price than about quality.

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"
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 12 Jan 2013
Posts: 56
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

New post 09 Feb 2013, 18:55
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
avatar
S
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 1327
Re: When a company refuses to allow other companies to produce  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Feb 2013, 06:57
1
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
User avatar
P
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8536
Location: Pune, India
Re: When a company refuses to allow other companies to produce  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Aug 2013, 22:24
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.

Answer (B)
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

Learn more about how Veritas Prep can help you achieve a great GMAT score by checking out their GMAT Prep Options >

GMAT self-study has never been more personalized or more fun. Try ORION Free!

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Status: Engineering consultant
Joined: 13 Jul 2014
Posts: 15
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

New post 13 Oct 2014, 08:14
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
User avatar
P
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8536
Location: Pune, India
Re: When a company refuses to allow other companies to produce  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Oct 2014, 20:25
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

Learn more about how Veritas Prep can help you achieve a great GMAT score by checking out their GMAT Prep Options >

GMAT self-study has never been more personalized or more fun. Try ORION Free!

Director
Director
User avatar
B
Status: I don't stop when I'm Tired,I stop when I'm done
Joined: 11 May 2014
Posts: 540
Location: Bangladesh
Concentration: Finance, Leadership
GPA: 2.81
WE: Business Development (Real Estate)
When a company refuses to allow other companies to produce  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Jul 2016, 05:06
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

Correct Answer B
_________________

Md. Abdur Rakib

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

Senior SC Moderator
User avatar
V
Joined: 14 Nov 2016
Posts: 1316
Location: Malaysia
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member CAT Tests
Re: When a company refuses to allow other companies to produce  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Apr 2017, 19:12
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!

Advanced Search : https://gmatclub.com/forum/advanced-search/

Director
Director
User avatar
G
Joined: 26 Oct 2016
Posts: 641
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

New post 12 Apr 2017, 08:52
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

BSchool Forum Moderator
User avatar
V
Joined: 28 Mar 2017
Posts: 1227
Location: India
GMAT 1: 730 Q49 V41
GPA: 4
CAT Tests
Re: When a company refuses to allow other companies to produce  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Aug 2017, 10:25
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!!
Preparing for RC my way
RC Summary Activity - New Project to imporve RC Skills
Bloomberg's US Bschool Ranking

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

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 08 Aug 2018
Posts: 33
WE: Engineering (Energy and Utilities)
CAT Tests
Re: When a company refuses to allow other companies to produce  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Sep 2018, 23:34
I think answer should be. The word "price" has been referred twice in the premises. Only by allowing the patent to other companies, the same product can be sold at cheaper price. The current answer "B" is idealistic.
GMAT Club Bot
Re: When a company refuses to allow other companies to produce &nbs [#permalink] 07 Sep 2018, 23:34
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  


Copyright

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

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®.