Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Hard

PT159 S1 Q20 ExplanationIt should be illegal to patent an organism’s genes

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

TopicsPrinciple-Strengthen

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • 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

Free to start

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Stimulus

It should be illegal to patent an organism’s genes, for a person should not be regarded as the inventor of something he or she merely discovered. Moreover, profit is selfish and irresponsible.

What this question is testing

Principle-Strengthen

Conclusion

The author wants gene patenting to be illegal.

Evidence

Two reasons. First, discovering something is not the same as inventing it. Second, profiting from genetic information is selfish.

Evaluate

The first reason is the heart of the argument. But it only gets us part of the way: it says you shouldn't be called an inventor if you only discovered something. We still need a step from "not an inventor" to "shouldn't be allowed to patent."

Think of it like this: knowing that finding a wild apple isn't the same as growing one doesn't automatically tell you that finders shouldn't be allowed to claim the apple. We need a principle that says discoverers don't get patent rights.

Goal

Find the principle that links discovery to the denial of patent rights.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
20.

Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify

Answer choices, explained

  1. Premise Support6% picked this

    Any person who exploits genetic information for profit should be

    This essentially restates the second premise — that exploiting genetic information is selfish — without bridging the gap between "discovered" and "should not be patented." Even granting that anyone who exploits genetic information is selfish, that does not establish that patenting genes should be illegal. We need a principle linking discovery to a denial of patent rights.

  2. Correct60% picked this

    Discovering something should not entitle one to

    Why this is right

    This is the bridge. The argument's key premise is that genes are discovered, not invented. To get to "patenting should be illegal," we need a principle that says discovery is not enough to justify a patent. This answer says exactly that: discovering something should not entitle one to patent it. Combined with the implicit fact that genes are discovered (not invented), it justifies the conclusion that gene patents should not be allowed.

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

  3. Too Weak25% picked this

    Discovering something does not always constitute

    "Does not always constitute" is too soft. The argument needs a principle that rules out patents whenever something is merely discovered, not just sometimes. With this watered-down principle, gene patents could still be allowed if genes happen to fall in the "sometimes discovery counts as invention" category. The conclusion does not follow from this.

  4. No Impact3% picked this

    No person should be allowed to profit from something that was invented

    This principle is about whether someone can profit from someone else's invention. The argument is about whether discoverers can patent what they discovered — a different question entirely. It does not address the discovery-versus-invention distinction the argument relies on.

  5. Opposite5% picked this

    A person or corporation who invents something should be entitled to

    This says inventors should be entitled to patent. That cuts the other way — it offers patent rights to inventors. The argument needs the contrapositive direction: that discoverers (who are not inventors) are not entitled to patents. This principle does not deliver that.

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