#11 - Specific Reference, Must Be True, Purpose/Function

[Administrator]

Please post your questions below! Thank you!

[RandyB]

Please explain this question and the correct answer. Also please outline why choice B is incorrect

[Adam Tyson]

I'll try, RandyB! The questions that ask about the primary purpose of a word, phrase, or section of the passage, or which use the words "in order to", are asking the question "why?" Why did the author mention that thing, use those words, have that discussion? To answer that, you need to examine the word or words in question in the larger context of the passage. How did it serve the main point? What did it provide that helped the author, or someone the author is writing about, make their point?

The author of this passage is trying to demonstrate that biotechnology patents are not a big deal, and that they won't cause the problems that scientists and policy makers are worried about. That's his main point - patents aren't a real hindrance, they are okay and should not be feared.

So, how does mentioning an old practice of scientists keeping research results to themselves serve that main point? Why did the author mention that? He did so to show that patents are nothing new, really, and that there has always been some level of secret-keeping in the industry. That supports the idea that they are nothing to be afraid of, but that they are just a way of formalizing what has always been done.

Answer B describes that using the phrase "not entirely unprecedented." In other words, there is a precedent - an established practice or guideline that is being followed, rather than some new rule being created from nothing. Put in simpler language, answer B is saying "show that what we are doing now is similar to what we have done before." Since that is exactly what the author was trying to do in order to support his claim that patents should not be feared and are not really a problem, that is the correct answer.

[gingerale]

I was stuck between B and E and ended up choosing E. I thought E was correct because this part of the paragraph was followed by the author saying that scientists have an incorrect conception of what patent rights are. I interpreted this as the author saying that scientists have a reaon to believe this, but here is why they don't. Why is E incorrect?

[Adam Tyson]

Because answer E is an opposite answer, gingerale. The author's purpose isn't to justify opposition to these patents, but to provide historical justification that SUPPORTS them. It's saying "we've always done stuff like this, so this is nothing new or special that we need to worry about." It's support, not opposition, and E is trying to turn us around and go the other way.