Logical Reasoning

PT116 · S3 · Q1 The development of new inventions

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

The development of new inventions is promoted by the granting of patent rights, which restrict the right of anyone but the patent holders to profit from these inventions for a specified period.

Conclusion

If we stopped granting patent rights, no one would engage in original development and no new inventions would happen.

Intermediate Conclusion

If we stopped granting patent rights, inventors wouldn't have any financial incentive to invent.

Evidence

If we stopped granting patent rights, anyone could just copy someone else's invention.

Evaluation

The author seems to be assuming that if other people can copy your invention, then that will greatly reduce or eliminate your financial incentive for inventing. So he must be assuming that, and that

In addition, even if we grant that other people would saturate the market with copies of your invention and you'd barely be able to make any money yourself, we still have to assume that people won't invent without a financial incentive.

But don't a lot of inventors just like the problem-solving process? Or maybe they're inventing for the fame that comes from inventing something useful. Maybe they're inventing for the sake of saving someone's life?

Goal

Look for an answer relating to the intermediate conclusion (assuming that people who copy would also try to sell your invention and that doing so would significantly cut into your own ability to achieve financial gain from your invention), or one relating to the main conclusion (that if you don't have a financial incentive, you won't bother inventing / people don't invent for non-financial ends)

1.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

  1. Correct

    Financial reward is the only

    Why this is right

    This sounds strong, but when we see conditional answers, we can just ask ourselves if the author was making that move. This looks like this: Motivate inventing ? Financial reward ~Financial reward ? ~Motivate Inventing The author was definitely going from "if you don't have a financial incentive, you aren't going to invent", so it seems very fair to say the author made this assumption. Her argument was essentially this: ~Patent ? ~Financial ? ~Inventions rights incentive She had established the first arrow in her evidence, but she was assuming that second arrow in order to draw her conclusion.

    Skill tested: Necessary Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    75% picked this

  2. When an inventor sells patent

    Too Specific

    We can't get into knowing whether inventor makes more / less / same than the manufacturer. All we are assuming is that the inventor at least sometimes has the potential to make a significant amount of profit (whatever would qualify as a financial incentive).

    1% picked this

  3. Any costs incurred by a

    Too Strong

    Patents sometimes allow people to make a lot of money on their invention, but the author doesn't have to assume that this is typically the case. Hiring a patent lawyer might be very expensive (maybe there are other fees to pay as well), and it could be the case that most inventions (the typical case) don't make the inventor enough money to dwarf the up front costs and make them insignificant. The author isn't promising that obtaining patent rights will usually make an invention lucrative. He's just saying it creates that possibility (it creates a financial incentive).

    12% picked this

  4. Patent rights should be granted

    Out of Scope: should be granted

    The author never gets into any discussion of who should / shouldn't be granted patent rights.

    9% picked this

  5. The length of a patent

    Too Specific: usually proportional

    The author doesn't get into any specifics that commit him to assuming that the length of a patent right is usually proportional. The idea of "most" is almost always wrong in Necessary Assumption, because negating it gives you not-most. Would it really affect this author's argument if the length of patent rights were proportional to upfront costs 51% of the time vs. 49% of the time? Since negating this has no weakening effect on the argument, it's not necessary to assume it.

    3% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free