It is currently 26 Jun 2017, 10:34

### 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

Director
Joined: 04 Jan 2008
Posts: 898
When a company refuses to allow other companies to produce [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Mar 2009, 03:55
9
KUDOS
41
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

65% (hard)

Question Stats:

48% (02:08) correct 52% (01:23) wrong based on 2554 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.

[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
B
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

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

Manager
Joined: 10 Jan 2009
Posts: 108
Re: CR-Manhattan-Patented technology [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Mar 2009, 03:52
19
KUDOS
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. ~~~

Manager
Joined: 20 Oct 2009
Posts: 111
Re: CR-Manhattan-Patented technology [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Jan 2010, 23:42
10
KUDOS
3
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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.

Senior Manager
Joined: 02 Nov 2008
Posts: 277
Re: CR-Manhattan-Patented technology [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Mar 2009, 23:30
2
KUDOS
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
Joined: 04 Jan 2008
Posts: 898
Re: CR-Manhattan-Patented technology [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Mar 2009, 08:39
2
KUDOS
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

Senior Manager
Joined: 29 Jul 2009
Posts: 315
Re: CR-Manhattan-Patented technology [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Jan 2010, 07:46
2
KUDOS
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.
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 7443
Location: Pune, India
Re: When a company refuses to allow other companies to produce [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Aug 2013, 23:24
2
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.
(E) Consumers care more about price than about quality.

[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

Manager
Joined: 26 Nov 2009
Posts: 164
Re: CR-Manhattan-Patented technology [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Jan 2010, 07:03
1
KUDOS
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.
Manager
Joined: 07 Jul 2010
Posts: 94
Location: Hanoi, Vietnam
Re: CR-Manhattan-Patented technology [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Jan 2011, 07:51
1
KUDOS
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.

[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
B

_________________

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

Intern
Joined: 14 Jan 2011
Posts: 3
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.
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"
Intern
Joined: 11 Mar 2009
Posts: 11
Re: CR-Manhattan-Patented technology [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Mar 2009, 10:16
Answer should be A, since otherwise the author could not come to the conclusion stated in the first sentence: if companies could find legal ways to produce technology similar to patented technology the consumer would not invariably lose. The extreme phrasing ("invariably") is also a good hint that the first sentence is the one to have a closer look at.

About B: if it was the companies obligation they not only should allow other manufacturers to license patented technology, but they would have to. That is my interpretation of obligation.
SVP
Joined: 04 May 2006
Posts: 1892
Schools: CBS, Kellogg
Re: CR-Manhattan-Patented technology [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Mar 2009, 00:30
D is the best

I think the argument preproposes that the consumer did NOT always loose if the company allow other companies to produce patented tech.
_________________
VP
Joined: 18 May 2008
Posts: 1260
Re: CR-Manhattan-Patented technology [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Mar 2009, 01:00
My choice is A
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.

is it B?
Senior Manager
Joined: 04 Sep 2008
Posts: 251
Location: Kolkata
Schools: La Martiniere for Boys
Re: CR-Manhattan-Patented technology [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Mar 2009, 07:52
IMO that in either case the assumption is that the other companies cannot find similar technologies else the business model (and our argument in question) would fail. A is therfore necessary assumption
_________________

Thanks
rampuria

Manager
Joined: 10 Jan 2009
Posts: 108
Re: CR-Manhattan-Patented technology [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Mar 2009, 09:46
Can we have the OA & OE please?

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. ~~~

Director
Joined: 04 Jan 2008
Posts: 898
Re: CR-Manhattan-Patented technology [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Mar 2009, 23:24
will post tonight
_________________

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

SVP
Joined: 04 May 2006
Posts: 1892
Schools: CBS, Kellogg
Re: CR-Manhattan-Patented technology [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Mar 2009, 01:19
Second look, E

OA cannot be A, B, C. D is a trap. will explain if correct!
_________________
Intern
Joined: 05 Jan 2010
Posts: 21
Re: CR-Manhattan-Patented technology [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Jan 2010, 07:01
I think I'm a little over a year late on answering this one considering all of the other posts are from around March 2009... but needless to say the answer is B and the question type is an inference.

The argument is that patents harm consumers... hence, it's the company's responsibility to essentially share its patent with competitors for the benefit of the consumer. Which would mean that the author considers or is inferring that the ultimate responsibity of a company is the welfare of their consumer.
Intern
Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 21
Schools: ISB
Re: CR-Manhattan-Patented technology [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Jan 2010, 07:29
Good explaination by technext !
Manager
Joined: 29 Nov 2009
Posts: 107
Location: United States
Re: CR-Manhattan-Patented technology [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Jan 2010, 09:34
I can see how you think A is right, but B presupposes more than A does. A is an assumption made by the argument but B addresses a more fundamental assumption that companies should do what is best for the consumer as opposed to the stockholder, etc.
Re: CR-Manhattan-Patented technology   [#permalink] 20 Jan 2010, 09:34

Go to page    1   2   3   4    Next  [ 66 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
1 Some credit card companies allow cardholders 1 27 May 2017, 02:20
6 Company president: Grievance procedures should allow the grievant and 2 16 Feb 2017, 23:59
Company A and Company B both produce gold watches 1 23 Apr 2016, 10:25
Some credit card companies allow cardholders to skip 1 17 Feb 2014, 07:52
Company president: Grievance procedures should allow the 2 05 Jul 2013, 00:24
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 and phpBB SEO 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®.