Q3 - The current move to patent

[b91302310]

The correct answer is (D). However, I was wondering why (E) is wrong.

As the argument concludes that he current move to patent computer programs is a move in the wrong direction, so it may be the intrests of the small inventors violated. Thus, (E) seems fit.

Could anyone explain it?

Thanks

[tamwaiman]

My PT17 S4 is RC...

[bbirdwell]

Yeah.... could you please verify which test the problem comes from?

[b91302310]

Sorry, it's PT17-S3-Q3.

[bbirdwell]

(E) says something about how the inventors act. This has nothing to do with the argument.

Focus on the conclusion and the evidence:
C: We should not patent computer programs
p: patents were designed to protect inventors
patents not designed to give corps. control of methodologies
computer programs are implementations of methodologies

The key shift here is in the wording. The argument would be fairly strong if the argument said that computer programs were methodologies, but that's not what it says. It says that computer programs are "implementations of methodologies." This is an important change.

Furthermore, when considering "assumption" answer choices, remember that your job is to identify something that absolutely MUST be true in order for the argument to work.

For (E), it doesn't matter whether or not the inventors act in their own interests. The logic of the argument has nothing to do with how the inventors act.

(D), however, must be true or the argument fails entirely. One can see this easily by negating it. If (D) is not true, and large corporations SHOULD hold patents for implementations... then the argument is completely destroyed. This is the test to see whether or not one has correctly identified the assumption. If the negated version of the choice destroys the conclusion, then you have identified the assumption, because the argument cannot logically function without it.

[erpriyankabishnoi]

If I negate E - why does the argument not fall apart?

[WaltGrace1983]

If I negate E - why does the argument not fall apart?

"Small-time inventors who support the move DO NOT act contrary to their own bests interests" would be the correct negation of (E).

(1) We don't care about the interests of small-time inventors, the conclusion is merely saying that this is a move in the "wrong direction" and "should be stopped." However, we don't know exactly WHY that is. Don't assume that it should be stopped BECAUSE it is contrary to the small-inventors' interests. Maybe we don't want to protect their interests.

(2) We know nothing about the inventors who support the move so how can we assume anything about it?

I originally picked out the assumption that what something is "originally designed for" needs to be retained. I thought for sure that would be the assumption that the question wanted.

[Mab6q]

I'm sorry I know there has been plenty of discussion on this question already, but I'm having a hard time figuring this out.

Conclusion: move to patent computer programs should be stopped

WHY: patent system was designed to protect small-time inventors, not to give large corps control over methodology.

Any computer program is the implementation of methodology

When I first read this argument, I couldn't notice how strong the argument was. So it might benefit large corporations, it that enough to say we should completely stop it. Maybe it's helping the small-time inventors in some way and that's enough to keep it. But there are other issues that pile up: the author seems to make the huge assumption that these corporations are actually benefiting from this patent, but there's nothing to suggest they are; then there's the issue that's already been pointed about about the implementation vs methodology in general.

I'll admit I can see the argument made for D, and it's a good one, but I just think E better matches up with the conclusion of the argument, which was about the small-time investors.

If we negate E, we get: small-time investors who support the patent program DONT act contrary to their own best interests. So this patent program lines up with their interests. The author thinks it's a move in the wrong direction because it doesn't protect them from exploitation, but E tells us that it's in their own best interest. That comes pretty close to breaking his conclusion.


Any thoughts?

[WaltGrace1983]

I'm sorry I know there has been plenty of discussion on this question already, but I'm having a hard time figuring this out.

Conclusion: move to patent computer programs should be stopped

WHY: patent system was designed to protect small-time inventors, not to give large corps control over methodology.

Any computer program is the implementation of methodology

When I first read this argument, I couldn't notice how strong the argument was. So it might benefit large corporations, it that enough to say we should completely stop it. Maybe it's helping the small-time inventors in some way and that's enough to keep it. But there are other issues that pile up: the author seems to make the huge assumption that these corporations are actually benefiting from this patent, but there's nothing to suggest they are; then there's the issue that's already been pointed about about the implementation vs methodology in general.

I'll admit I can see the argument made for D, and it's a good one, but I just think E better matches up with the conclusion of the argument, which was about the small-time investors.

If we negate E, we get: small-time investors who support the patent program DONT act contrary to their own best interests. So this patent program lines up with their interests. The author thinks it's a move in the wrong direction because it doesn't protect them from exploitation, but E tells us that it's in their own best interest. That comes pretty close to breaking his conclusion.


Any thoughts?

I think I might be able to answer your question. I'll take this one from top to bottom.

The patent system originally designed to protect small-time inventors, not give large corporations control over a methodology
+
Any comp program is the implementation of a methodology
-->
Move to patent computer programs, thus giving large corps. control over a methodology, should be stopped

The main assumption here that I saw when I first read this argument was that a system's original intention (what it was "originally designed" to do) actually matters. More importantly, failing to follow a system's original intention can actually have something to do with its rightness or wrongness.

(A) Developing computer programs is not relevant here. There is no mention of it and we have no implicit assumptions about it. This is not necessary to assume.

(B) "Less creative effort?" "Intervention?" These ideas are also irrelevant and certainly not necessary.

(C) Not necessary. Is it necessary to assume that these problems have never before arisen? Nope.

(E) I think you are believing that the "best interests" of small-time inventors is relevant here. However, who's to say that we care at all about the best interests of small-time inventors? Maybe we don't at all!

The argument is never assuming that, BECAUSE the new patent system goes against small-time inventors, it "should be stopped." Instead, it is assuming that BECAUSE the patent system was originally designed a certain way AND that way is not being honored, it should be stopped.

We don't know if the small-time inventors' interests have anything to do with why the "current move...should be stopped." Maybe it should be stopped due to bad business principles/ethics.

Let's say that the small inventors DO act contrary to their interests by supporting the move...so what? Should we stop the new system? THAT is the question you need to answer.

So I urge you to go back and think about what the argument is BASED ON. That will help you get rid of (E). It is NOT based on the interests of the inventors, though it seems like in real-world that would be logical.

(D) is correct. It takes a little bit different of a perspective than I would have anticipated. Instead, of focusing solely on the original motivations of developing a system, it focuses on the 2nd premise: Any computer program is merely the implementation of a methodology. Check this out:

Any comp program is the implementation of a methodology.
+
Large corps SHOULD hold patents for the implementation of a methodology
-->
Move to patent computer programs, thus giving large corps. control over a methodology, should be stopped

When the negation of (D) is placed in the argument, the argument fails to really be logical: the conclusion does not lead from the premises. In fact, the premise would seem to lead to the OPPOSITE conclusion.

Make sense?

[ohthatpatrick]

Great response, Walt!!

Conc:
The move to patent computer programs should be stopped.

=== how to logically unpack that idea ===
Okay, author, tell me something about "the move to patent computer programs" and then tell me that "I shouldn't do that" thing.
==============

Prem:
Computer programs are implementations of methodologies.

=== possible assumption ====
"You shouldn't move to patent implementations of technologies"
============

Prem:
The current move would give large corporations patent control over a methodology.

=== possible assumption ====
"You shouldn't give a large corporation patent control over a methodology." This, of course, is how (D) works.
================

Prem:
The patent system was originally designed solely to protect small-time investors from exploitation.

=== possible assumption ====
"You shouldn't move away from solely protecting small time investors from exploitation"
=========

This last assumption is the one Walt (and probably many others, such as myself) was anticipating.

And it seems to be the one that (E) is getting twisted into. But there's just no language in here about small-time investors' "best interests". Plus, this answer choice dives into the psychology and motives of people.

All the conclusion is debating is the "should-ness" of a new patent law.

What small-time investors are supporting the move to the new patent law?

We never heard about any of them.

It's possible that the only small-time investors who support the move to patent computer programs are doing so with the promise of being hired for a more lucrative job with a large corporation once the law passes. In this case, the small-timers who DO support the move are NOT acting contrary to their best interest. Meanwhile, the author would all along be protesting the new patent law either way.