LR Drill Set 1, Question 4
Patents are issued only for inventions that are(59 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(8 more words not shown)
- AWere it not(12 more words not shown)
- BLast year, more(10 more words not shown)
- CThe field of(10 more words not shown)
- DOf the computer(16 more words not shown)
- EMore patents for(14 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
No more patents for computer algorithms. How much will that change the total number of patents?
The opening rule tells us that patented inventions must be new and useful. It doesn't tell us that every new, useful invention gets a patent.
We then learn that a very high number of last year's patents were for algorithms. That sounds important, but it still leaves me wondering how much of the overall patent activity those algorithms represent. Even a large number can be a small share of a much larger total.
More importantly, the conclusion concerns this year. A busy year for algorithm patents doesn't automatically tell us what would happen next. To credit the new ban with cutting this year's number, there must be some algorithm patents for it to stop.
What we’re looking for
The question asks for an assumption the argument needs. We don't have to find everything that would prove a significant reduction. Look for something the prediction cannot do without. Also keep the comparison straight: this year's total with the law versus this year's total without it. The author isn't necessarily predicting a decline from last year.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
Without the new law, some algorithms would receive patents this year. If none would receive patents anyway, banning algorithm patents would remove nothing from this year's total. The argument needs there to be patents that the law prevents. This is more modest than establishing that the reduction will be significant, but it is a required starting point.
- B
More than half is unnecessary. Suppose algorithms accounted for 30 percent of patents. Preventing a comparable number could still make a significant difference without algorithms ever making up a majority. B also talks about last year's distribution, while the predicted effect concerns this year.
- C
Inventions and issued patents aren't interchangeable. Not every invention necessarily receives a patent, and computer science can produce inventions other than the algorithms covered by this ban. In any event, the argument doesn't need computer science to produce a majority of all recent inventions for this law to remove a significant number of patents.
- D
A low approval rate could still produce many patents if enough applications were submitted. Imagine only 10 percent succeeded, but the number of submissions was enormous. The argument could still work. It doesn't require most past algorithm applications to have been approved.
- E
This compares the wrong two totals. Suppose last year had 1,000 patents. Without the law, this year would have had 2,000; with it, this year has 1,200. The law has cut this year's number substantially below what it otherwise would have been, even though this year still exceeds last year. The argument can be right while E is false.
More Necessary Assumption questions
- Logical Reasoning Drill Set 10, Question 2Necessary Assumption
- Logical Reasoning Drill Set 11, Question 7Necessary Assumption
- Logical Reasoning Drill Set 12, Question 10Necessary Assumption
- Logical Reasoning Drill Set 13, Question 11Necessary Assumption
- Logical Reasoning Drill Set 14, Question 1Necessary Assumption
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.