Reading Comprehension

PT144 · S1 · P2 · Q12 Biotechnology Patents

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Reading Comprehension 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 following passage was adapted from a law journal article published in 1998.

Topic

Biotech Patents' effect on basic research

Framework

Challenge a Position

Main Point

Although many are concerned about the chilling effect of biotech patents on basic research, it's really not that different from how it's always been, and people who want to do basic research on patented materials will still usually be able to access those materials without fear of being prosecuted for patent infringement.

Summary

P1 - Background to the (perceived) Problem

The author sets up the background tension. Industries want to patent their biotech innovations in order to monetize them and academic researchers want to be able to patent their findings since that's how they get research funding. Then we get our Purpose Pivot (but, yet, however, recently) showing us that recently it's feeling like the patenting of biotech could be problematic.

At this point, I would have been using a Problem / Solution framework, since it feels like this last sentence is setting up that type of passage.

P2 - The Position the author will challenge

This lays out the concerns of "the perceived threat to basic research". Throughout this paragraph, the author is reminding us that this is not her view, inclining us to expect that her view will be at odds with this one. Here are how four of the sentences begin:

- the perceived threat - these restrictions are seen as - some researchers fear - academic researchers who oppose biotech patents fear

P3 - The author challenges this Position

The author tries to calm down the worried people from P2. She begins with a concession "While it is true that", but then pivots into undermining their concerns. - basic researchers will still have access, without a costly agreement - patent holders won't come after them, and even if they did, judges usually don't enforce patents against harmless (non-commercial) research

12.

The passage provides the strongest support for inferring which one of the following?

  1. Policy makers are no less

    Unsupported Comparison

    We can't aggregately compare what percentage of policy makers favor new restrictions vs. what percentage of academic researchers do. We know biotech academic researchers are increasingly in favor of patents and policy makers are giving patents increased scrutiny, but the fact that each group moved in a certain direction doesn't tell us how their overall stats compare. For example, we could see Republicans increasingly support universal healthcare and Democrats look at universal healthcare with increased scrutiny, but if the starting point for those moves was 20% of R's approved and 70% of D's approved, and increase of R support and a decrease of D support could still end up with either one "being in the lead".

    13% picked this

  2. Most biotechnology patent holders believe

    Too Strong: most

    Nothing in this passage talks about what is true of 51% or more of biotech patent holders. If anything, the author goes against the gist of this answer in the final paragraph by saying, "you don't have to worry about patent holders coming after basic research ... they'll only come if they're worried someone is threatening their market position (and they're not worried that basic research is doing that)."

    8% picked this

  3. Biotechnology researchers who work in

    Too Strong: generally

    The second sentence of the passage is our closest support to this, but it seems to say that "if your results weren't patentable, then you wouldn't get research funding". It doesn't say, "If you oppose patents, then you won't get research funding". They might oppose patents but still have their results patented by the people who funded them. It's also not clear what percentage of the biotech research field we can apply this sentence to. The sentence seems to be saying that "for the biotech researchers who increasingly favor biotech patent, they are reliant on funding that is contingent on patentable results."

    11% picked this

  4. Correct

    Suing for patent infringement is

    Why this is right

    This is lovably weak: not the only way is provable as long as there's "at least one other way, besides suing, in which patent holders can assert legal control over use of their materials". There is at least one other way. The second sentence of the second paragraph says the restrictions on access to materials would come "either from enforcement of a patent right or through operation of a contractual agreement". Rather than forbidding someone to use their patented materials and then suing them for infringement if that person does use the materials, a patent holder can agree to letting someone use the patented materials if they sign a materials-transfer agreement or license agreement. Suing is not the only way to exert legal control over your materials.

    Skill tested: Inference · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

    67% picked this

  5. Rapid commercialization in the field

    Too Strong: rapid / dearth

    The author acknowledges a shift towards a market model, but never says that there's been "rapid" commercialization. And the author never claims there's a dearth (scarcity / shortage) of "highly educated" biologists willing to teach.

    1% 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