CR Question Bank: Patented Technology

[s.aamershah]

I'm having trouble using Least Extreme Negation to rule out an answer choice that I find tempting.

The explanation states that "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. "

I'm having trouble negating the first answer choice.

If Companies MAY find legal ways to produce technology similar to patented technology, then companies DO NOT need to allow other manufacturers to license patented technology and the consumer would NOT be harmed because there is direct competition.

To me this causes the argument to fail.

Am I using the technique incorrectly?

On a general note, do you use LEN to test the answer choice against just the conclusion or the entire argument? In this case, "Companies should therefore allow other manufacturers to license patented technology" does not reference the goal to benefit the consumer.

Thanks for your help!

[s.aamershah]

The Question:
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.

[StaceyKoprince]

It is a tricky technique.

Conc: comp should allow other comps to license pat.tech

Prem: comp w/pat monopoly charges lots of $; cons pays more. Cons would pay less if other comps could use tech.

To negate "Companies CANNOT <do something>" we would say "companies COULD, at least some of the time, <do whatever that thing is>"

The assumption "exists" between one of the premises and the conclusion, so we're basically testing the connection between the two.

The correct answer should make a connection between the two. If we negate the correct answer, it should actually mess up the connection. The connection is the key thing - not just the conclusion (or just the premise).

P: If there's a monopoly, the consumer pays more.
A: (other) companies can't mimic the tech in some other way.
LEN: (other) companies can sometimes mimic the tech in some other way.
C: companies should license their tech to other comps.

Does the A help us draw the conclusion from P? Does the LEN hurt the conclusion we're drawing from P?

In this case, not really. This choice doesn't actually help us connect P to C.

Try this:
P: If there's a monopoly, the consumer pays more.
A: Companies must act in the best interest of the cons.
LEN: Comps don't have to act in the best interest of the cons.
C: companies should license their tech to other comps.

Does the A help us draw the conclusion from P? Does the LEN hurt the conclusion we're drawing from P?

In this case, bingo! The A does actually help connect the P to the C. And the LEN does actually mess up that connection.

Joe: Company X has a monopoly, so I have to pay more to buy that product!
Susie: Companies don't have to set their policies to make sure you don't have to pay as much money. They don't have to care about your best interests if they don't want to.
Joe: Exactly! Therefore, X should license its tech to other companies so that I can pay less money!

Hmm. No. Susie's comment totally kills Joe's argument. :) What if Susie had said, "I know, right? Companies totally have an obligation to make sure they set prices based upon their customers' best interests!" That would help Joe's argument.

[srini_shrek]

An assumption is an unstated premise. The given stimulus starts with the following line.

"When a company refuses to allow other companies to produce patented technology"

A patented company refusing permission to other companies implies that for other companies taking permission from the company holding the patent is the only way to produce the patented technology. This rules out all other ways including legal ways also.
So the answer is defintely (A).

[tim]

no, the answer is B. reread Stacey's explanation and the explanation in our question bank, and let us know if there are specific parts of those explanations that you'd like further clarification on..

[archit_anand143]

Hello team
Stacey's explanation was really excellent....
But i have got few queries regarding the question...

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

I think one line assumption here is " Price will for sure fall and patent is short lived" the argument intends that when prices fall the consumers may not return back....to the company which had the patent.
But, We do not know as per the argument that whether after the price fall what will be the strategy of the company may be seeing the change it may also reduce the price and who knows the customers might have liked the product and hence with decrease in the price they like to stay with the company's product rather than choosing other company's mimic product.Hence how can the option B the assumption.

Regards
Archit

[tim]

I think one line assumption here is " Price will for sure fall and patent is short lived" the argument intends that when prices fall the consumers may not return back....to the company which had the patent.

i don't know what a "line assumption" is, but what you've written here doesn't even show up as an answer choice. you seem to be taking issue with the fact that B is a necessary assumption. please understand you cannot undermine this as a correct choice just by identifying another possible assumption, especially one that doesn't appear in the answer choices..

[archit_anand143]

Thank you tim for your reply.
i am facing difficulty in pre thinking. The assumption which i think never turns up as any of the option choice.
But I am practicing to ace it. If you have any specific suggestion, pls post.
Thanks again my clear with doubt.
Regards
Archit

[tim]

if you are not experiencing success at predicting answers, you may find it more helpful simply to read the answer choices and process them rather than trying to guess what the answers will say. try that and see how it works for you..

[hrhanita2003]

Hi!

I am having some difficulty understanding why answer choice E is wrong.

E. Consumers care more about price than about quality.

Doesn't the consumer "lose" because he/she cares more about the price of the good, rather than its quality?
I mean, if that would not be the case, then the price hike that happens whilst the technology is patented wouldn't bother the consumer if he/she were dedicated to acquiring a quality product.

Hope to receive some advice.
Anita.

[RonPurewal]

Hi!

I am having some difficulty understanding why answer choice E is wrong.

E. Consumers care more about price than about quality.

Doesn't the consumer "lose" because he/she cares more about the price of the good, rather than its quality?

no, the consumer loses simply because (s)he cares about price, and price is the only thing that changes here.

how much the consumer cares about quality is irrelevant.
(s)he might not care about it at all, or it might be the single biggest factor in his/hear head; it doesn't matter either way, because no decrement in quality is mentioned.

see, if the passage said something like "... letting patents expire allows prices to fall, but also erodes the quality of the products" - but that situation was still viewed as a win from the standpoint of the consumer - then you'd have to make this assumption. otherwise, no.

[hrhanita2003]

Ah!

it doesn't matter either way, because no decrement in quality is mentioned.

That makes sense, I sometimes lose track of the fact that in the correct answer choice, absolutely every part must be relevant to the question.

Cheers for the explanation!

[jnelson0612]

Ah!

it doesn't matter either way, because no decrement in quality is mentioned.

That makes sense, I sometimes lose track of the fact that in the correct answer choice, absolutely every part must be relevant to the question.

Cheers for the explanation!

Great! Glad that it helped. :-)

[arushigupta712]

It is a tricky technique.

Conc: comp should allow other comps to license pat.tech

Prem: comp w/pat monopoly charges lots of $; cons pays more. Cons would pay less if other comps could use tech.

To negate "Companies CANNOT <do something>" we would say "companies COULD, at least some of the time, <do whatever that thing is>"

The assumption "exists" between one of the premises and the conclusion, so we're basically testing the connection between the two.

The correct answer should make a connection between the two. If we negate the correct answer, it should actually mess up the connection. The connection is the key thing - not just the conclusion (or just the premise).

P: If there's a monopoly, the consumer pays more.
A: (other) companies can't mimic the tech in some other way.
LEN: (other) companies can sometimes mimic the tech in some other way.
C: companies should license their tech to other comps.

Does the A help us draw the conclusion from P? Does the LEN hurt the conclusion we're drawing from P?

In this case, not really. This choice doesn't actually help us connect P to C.

Try this:
P: If there's a monopoly, the consumer pays more.
A: Companies must act in the best interest of the cons.
LEN: Comps don't have to act in the best interest of the cons.
C: companies should license their tech to other comps.

Does the A help us draw the conclusion from P? Does the LEN hurt the conclusion we're drawing from P?

In this case, bingo! The A does actually help connect the P to the C. And the LEN does actually mess up that connection.

Joe: Company X has a monopoly, so I have to pay more to buy that product!
Susie: Companies don't have to set their policies to make sure you don't have to pay as much money. They don't have to care about your best interests if they don't want to.
Joe: Exactly! Therefore, X should license its tech to other companies so that I can pay less money!

Hmm. No. Susie's comment totally kills Joe's argument. :) What if Susie had said, "I know, right? Companies totally have an obligation to make sure they set prices based upon their customers' best interests!" That would help Joe's argument.

Dear Instructors,

I see the argument in question as having two conclusions (primary & secondary):

Prem: Company refuses to allow production of patented tech. by other companies

Secondary Conc: Therefore there is no direct competition; it charges lots of $; cons pays more.

Prem: Cons would pay less if other comps could use tech.

Primary Conc: comp should allow other comps to license pat.tech

Option (A) messes up the connection to Secondary conclusion & (B) messes the connection to primary conclusion.

For me, both (A) & (B) can be the answers.

Please help me out.

[tim]

[deleted by author]