- Thu Jun 09, 2016 5:11 pm
#26354
Emily, you raise two interesting points.
First, with respect to answer choice (C), you have noted that the author does make a connection between the patentability of results and the availability of research funding. The connection between this answer choice and the information in the passage bears a brief discussion. As this is a Must Be True question (i.e. a question that asks you to prove something based on information in the passage), any time you find yourself reacting to an answer choice thinking, "Well, that seems likely" or "Possibly, since there is a connection between those two things," you need to pause and ask yourself, "Do I know this for sure?" Attractive wrong answers on Must Be True questions will often make students think, "Hey this looks good to me!" You need to approach these questions with an appropriate degree of skepticism and scrutiny. Zero in on words such as "generally" in answer choice (C), and verify whether the strength of this word is provable based on the passage. Also, look to make sure you have definite information about biotechnology researchers who oppose biotechnology patents. To riff off an old adage, when it comes to Must Be True, don't trust, and verify.
Second, with respect to answer choice (D), start by noting the contrast in the strength of language here. Instead of "generally" as in (C), we have "not the only way." This kind of qualifier indicates a less extreme, i.e. easier to prove statement (it's easier to show that at least one swan is white than to show that all swans are white). Now look for the explicit support for answer choice (D) in the passage. Start by recalling the organization of the passage. Where in the passage does the author first detail some methods which patent holders can use to enforce restrictions? The second paragraph is a natural place to begin since it is where the author expounds upon the "threat to basic research" from patents. Following the directional indicators "some researchers," then "in other instances," and finally "for example," which directly addresses the preceding "materials-transfer agreement" situation. You can notice the progression of this topic. The support for this answer is found in lines 23-34.
In lines 19-23, the author describes the method of patent holders' suing for patent infringement to assert legal control, but after that in 23, the "in other instances" indicated we are now out of lawsuit land and in a different situation. The situation detailed is that of restricting access through materials-transfer or license agreements. The passage further discusses the prohibitively high fees that patent holders could potentially charge to restrict access to (i.e. "assert legal control over the use of")their patented materials.
Based on the evidence above, there is another way besides suing for patent holders to assert legal control over the use of their patented materials.
I hope this explanation clears up some of your questions. Please reply if you need further help with this or any other question.
