Loading...
A new law gives ownership of patents—documents providing exclusive right to make and sell an invention—to universities, not the government, when those patents result from government-sponsored university research. Administrators at Logos University plan to sell any patents they acquire to corporations in order to fund programs to improve undergraduate teaching.
Which of the following, if true, would cast most doubt on the viability of the college administrators' plan described above?
Profit-making corporations interested in developing products based on patents held by universities are likely to try to serve as exclusive sponsors of ongoing university research projects.
Corporate sponsors of research in university facilities are entitled to tax credits under new federal tax-code guidelines.
Research scientists at Logos University have few or no teaching responsibilities and participate little if at all in the undergraduate programs in their field.
Government-sponsored research conducted at Logos University for the most part duplicates research already completed by several profit-making corporations.
Logos University is unlikely to attract corporate sponsorship of its scientific research.
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| A new law gives ownership of patents—documents providing exclusive right to make and sell an invention—to universities, not the government, when those patents result from government-sponsored university research. |
|
| Administrators at Logos University plan to sell any patents they acquire to corporations in order to fund programs to improve undergraduate teaching. |
|
The passage presents a factual setup followed by a plan. First, we learn about a new law that gives universities ownership of patents from government-funded research. Then we see how Logos University administrators want to use this opportunity by selling patents to fund teaching improvements.
There actually isn't a main conclusion here - this is more of a situation description. The passage describes Logos University's plan to sell patents to fund undergraduate teaching programs.
This isn't a traditional argument with premises supporting a conclusion. Instead, it's a conditional plan: IF the new law gives universities patents, AND IF Logos gets patents, THEN they plan to sell them to fund teaching. The logical connection is: Legal Opportunity → Strategic Response → Intended Outcome.
Weaken - We need to find information that would make us doubt whether Logos University's plan to sell patents and fund teaching improvements will actually work
The plan involves specific activities: acquiring patents from government-sponsored research, selling them to corporations, and using that money to improve undergraduate teaching programs
To weaken this plan, we need to think about what could go wrong at any step of their process. We should look for scenarios that would prevent them from getting patents, make it hard to sell patents, reduce the money they'd get, or create problems with using patent money for teaching. The key is to find realistic obstacles that would make their plan fail or be much less successful than expected.
Profit-making corporations interested in developing products based on patents held by universities are likely to try to serve as exclusive sponsors of ongoing university research projects.
This choice suggests that corporations will want to sponsor university research to get exclusive access to patents. However, this doesn't weaken Logos University's plan - it actually could strengthen it! If corporations are eager to sponsor research and get patents, this creates more opportunities for patent development and potential sales. This doesn't cast doubt on their plan's viability.
Corporate sponsors of research in university facilities are entitled to tax credits under new federal tax-code guidelines.
Tax credits for corporate sponsors don't directly impact Logos University's plan to sell patents they acquire from government-sponsored research. The plan focuses on government-funded research, not corporate-sponsored research. Even if this were relevant, tax incentives for corporations would likely make them more willing to engage with universities, not less. This doesn't weaken the plan.
Research scientists at Logos University have few or no teaching responsibilities and participate little if at all in the undergraduate programs in their field.
The fact that research scientists have few teaching responsibilities doesn't affect the viability of selling patents to fund teaching programs. The plan doesn't require research scientists to be involved in teaching - it just requires that patents can be sold and the money used for teaching improvements. The disconnect between researchers and teachers doesn't prevent this financial transaction from working.
Government-sponsored research conducted at Logos University for the most part duplicates research already completed by several profit-making corporations.
CORRECT - If Logos University's government-sponsored research mostly duplicates work already completed by corporations, then the resulting patents would cover inventions that corporations already have or have developed similar alternatives for. Why would corporations pay for patents on technology they already possess or have better versions of? This directly undermines the plan because it suggests there would be little to no market for Logos University's patents, making it impossible to generate the revenue needed to fund teaching improvements.
Logos University is unlikely to attract corporate sponsorship of its scientific research.
This choice mentions that Logos University is unlikely to attract corporate sponsorship, but the plan described in the passage relies on government-sponsored research, not corporate-sponsored research. The university plans to sell patents from government funding to corporations - they don't need corporate sponsorship to make this plan work. This choice addresses the wrong type of research funding and doesn't impact the plan's viability.