Logical Reasoning

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

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

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.

Conclusion

It should be illegal to patent an organism's genes.

Evidence (for)

A person should not be regarded as the inventor of something they merely discovered. Also, exploitation of genetic information for profit is selfish and irresponsible.

Evaluate

We know that the outcome (right side) of the principle should be something that sounds like "should be illegal to patent".

The available ideas for the trigger of the principle are - you discovered it, you didn't invent it - exploiting this is selfish and irresponsible.

Goal

Let's look for something like , or something like .

But ultimately we just want a rule whose trigger applies to patenting genes and whose outcome helps us say "should be illegal to do it".

20.

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

  1. Any person who exploits genetic

    Premise Support

    The trigger matches the evidence, but we're trying to conclude "should be illegal" not "should be considered selfish".

    6% picked this

  2. Correct

    Discovering something should not entitle

    Why this is right

    Short and sweet! This says "if you're discovering something, then you shouldn't be entitled (on that basis) to patent it". We were told that people looking to patent an organism's genes had merely discovered something; they hadn't invented anything. So according to this rule, they shouldn't be entitled to patent an organism's genes. That's in the right direction of "it should be illegal", even if they're slightly different.

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

    62% picked this

  3. Discovering something does not always

    Too Weak

    This rule is saying, "If discovered, then didn't invent". The argument isn't trying to conclude "you didn't invent an organism's genes". It's trying to conclude "it should be illegal to patent an organism's genes".

    24% picked this

  4. No person should be allowed

    No Impact

    This rule says, If someone else invented it, then you shouldn't be allowed to profit from it. The trigger doesn't apply to an organism's genes, because no one invented them. And the outcome doesn't match the conclusion, because we're trying to conclude "it should be illegal to patent", rather than "you shouldn't be able to profit from it".

    4% picked this

  5. A person or corporation who

    Opposite

    This says, If you did invent something, you are entitled to patent it. We wanted If you didn't invent something, you aren't entitled to patent it.

    4% 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