Logical Reasoning

PT17 · S3 · Q3 The current move to patent computer

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 current move to patent computer programs is a move in the wrong direction and should be stopped.

Conclusion

The current move to patent computer programs is bad / should be stopped.

Evidence

Computer programs are just the implementation of a methodology, and the patent system was originally designed solely to protect small inventors from exploitation, not to give large corporations control over a methodology.

Evaluate

There are several copycat terms in the evidence and conclusion, so this question is probably testing a Missing Link.

We know from combining the two premises that patenting computer programs (a methodology) wouldn't accord with the original design of the patent system.

The conclusion is saying that patenting computer programs is wrong / should be stopped.

Goal

So the missing link that would get us from what we know to what the author is trying to prove would sound something like,

3.

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

  1. Computer programs should be developed

    Out of Scope (developing programs)

    The only should that the author is discussing relates to whether computer programs should / shouldn't be patented. The author is never discussing who should / shouldn't develop computer programs in the first place. It wouldn't matter to the author if all programs were made by large corporations or by small investors. In either case, the author things they shouldn't be patented.

    5% picked this

  2. Implementing a methodology always requires

    Trap

    Too Strong (always) Unsupported Comparison (less effort) The argument never discusses creative effort at all, nor does it need to. So the author definitely hasn't committed to the insanely extreme idea that every single invention involved more creative effort than any implementation of a methodology.

    2% picked this

  3. The issue of whether or

    Too Strong (never before seen)

    There's no reason to think the author thinks this current issue is unprecedented. It doesn't make any difference to the argument whether this issue is new or familiar. If anything, the author is sort of making a historical based argument so she's more relying on precedent than thinking this is a totally new situation.

    3% picked this

  4. Correct

    Large corporations should not hold

    Why this is right

    This isn't exactly the link we predicted, but it's clearly embedded in the author's thinking. It gets at the New Concept in the Conclusion of "should". We were expecting something like, "we should not do something that isn't aligned with the original design of the patent system". And this answer is just spelling out that idea. The original design of the patent system was not to give large corporations patents for methodologies. The author thinks we should still be thinking the same way: large corporations shouldn't get patents for implementing methodologies. If we negated this, we'd be able to weaken the author by saying, "Hey, author -- large corporations should hold patents for the implementation of methodologies. And since computer programs are just implementations of methodologies, it should be fine if corporations (or anyone else) gets a patent for a computer program."

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

    84% picked this

  5. Small-time inventors who support the

    Out of Scope (small-time supporters)

    The author never discusses small-time inventors who support the move to patent computer programs, so the author hasn't committed to any claims about whether they're acting in their best interest or not. Whether supporting patenting would be good for them or bad for them wouldn't affect the author's ability to argue, "We shouldn't allow people to patent X, since that wouldn't be in line with the original design of the patent system."

    7% 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