PrepTest 116, Section 3, Question 1
The development of new inventions is promoted by(78 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(8 more words not shown)
- AFinancial reward is(14 more words not shown)
- BWhen an inventor(19 more words not shown)
- CAny costs incurred(22 more words not shown)
- DPatent rights should(18 more words not shown)
- EThe length of(14 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Taking away a reason to invent isn't the same as taking away every reason to invent.
I can see why patent rights might encourage someone to spend time developing a product. For a while, other people cannot simply copy the invention and compete for the same profits. That prospect of making money gives the inventor a reason to do the work.
Let's even accept the author's next claim: without that protection, inventors would have no financial incentive. Does it follow that nobody would invent anything? Maybe someone wants to help people. Maybe someone enjoys figuring things out. Those motives don't disappear just because the money does.
What we’re looking for
Less invention would be one thing. No invention at all is much stronger. The conclusion needs money to be the only effective motivation, because otherwise removing the financial incentive leaves another possible reason to invent. That's the assumption I want: financial reward must be necessary for anyone to do original development.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
This closes off the other motivations we were considering. If financial reward is the only effective incentive, taking it away would leave people without an effective reason to develop inventions. If helping society or enjoying the work could motivate someone instead, the author's prediction that nobody will invent would no longer follow. The argument depends on ruling out those alternatives.
- B
Who gets the bigger share of the profit? That isn't our problem. The manufacturer could earn more than the inventor while the inventor still had a strong financial incentive to invent. The argument concerns whether that incentive disappears without patents, not how an inventor and a manufacturer divide their earnings.
- C
The application costs could be significant and a patent could still be profitable. Imagine spending $50 to obtain rights that bring in $100. The cost is half the benefit, which is hardly insignificant, but there is still money left over. The author doesn't need the application cost to be tiny to argue that patent rights provide an incentive.
- D
This proposes a restriction on which inventions should receive patents. The argument does not need that particular restriction. Its claim about incentives could work whether similar products sometimes receive patents or never do. Supporting patent rights also doesn't commit the author to every possible rule for granting them.
- E
We know the rights last for a specified period. We aren't told that more expensive inventions receive proportionally longer protection, and the reasoning doesn't require that arrangement. Even a system giving every patent the same duration could provide the financial incentive the author describes.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.