PrepTest 159, Section 1, Question 20
It should be illegal to patent an organism's(29 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(9 more words not shown)
- AAny person who(9 more words not shown)
- BDiscovering something should(6 more words not shown)
- CDiscovering something does(5 more words not shown)
- DNo person should(12 more words not shown)
- EA person or(10 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Why should patenting genes be prohibited? Imagine someone designing a genetic change that helps a crop grow. I would want to know why that should be treated differently from another invention. That hypothetical also raises the distinction the author relies on: did someone invent something, or merely discover something already there?
The author says mere discovery shouldn't make someone an inventor. Then a second objection appears: exploiting genetic information for profit is selfish and irresponsible. Those are different reasons, and neither automatically tells us what patent rights should be allowed.
Is every selfish act something we should ban? The author hasn't given us that rule. Likewise, why would merely discovering something make someone ineligible for a patent? That rule is missing too.
What we’re looking for
For the principle question, look for a rule that carries one of those reasons to the conclusion. It could connect mere discovery to patent eligibility, or connect the moral objection to a restriction. We don't have to resolve every philosophical question about what counts as inventing in order to identify a useful connection.
Working the answers
- A
Calling people who profit from genetic information selfish repeats part of the support. It doesn't supply a rule about whether they should be allowed patents. The missing step is from the stated reason to the proposed restriction, not from the conduct to another assertion of selfishness.
- BCorrect
Mere discovery shouldn't entitle someone to a patent. That directly connects the author's discovery-based objection to the right the author wants to deny. Treating the genes as discovered rather than invented now has a stated consequence for patent eligibility.
The wording isn't identical to “should be illegal,” which might initially make us hesitate. But the argument concerns whether patenting should be permitted; we don't need to add a claim about criminal punishment. B helps justify denying patent rights on the basis the author discusses. It needn't settle our earlier hypothetical about designing something new.
- C
This says discovery doesn't always count as invention. It doesn't tell us whether the particular genetic activity qualifies, and it doesn't connect either classification to patent eligibility. It also leaves open the possibility that some discoveries count as inventions, without establishing that any do. B is much more directly connected to the conclusion.
- D
This concerns profiting from something invented by another person. The argument doesn't say another person invented these genes, and profiting is different from obtaining a patent. D introduces a different ownership situation instead of supplying the needed rule about discovery.
- E
Allowing an inventor to patent an invention doesn't tell us whether a mere discoverer should receive a patent. The author is drawing precisely that distinction. E could coexist with refusing patents for mere discoveries, so it doesn't supply the missing restriction.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.