- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 651
- Joined: Oct 19, 2022
- Tue Jul 09, 2024 2:37 pm
#107458
Hi geeeegz,
First, wrong answers in Method -Argument Part questions often describe other parts of the argument in the stimulus.
Here, Answer B would be correctly describing the second sentence in the stimulus. The statement that "universities ... should encourage the free flow of ideas and general dissemination of knowledge" is the principle that is used to support the conclusion.
It's also important to correctly identify the parts of the argument in the stimulus prior to reading the question, and certainly prior to reading the answers.
It is important to understand how the logic flows in this argument (just like every argument) and Dave's explanation illustrates exactly how to test how the logic flows.
Simply put, the first sentence in the argument does not support the last sentence. That logic would be backwards. The claim that "a university should not be entitled to patent the inventions of its faculty members" does not support the claim that "suppressing information concerning discoveries is incompatible with the university's obligation to promote the free flow of ideas."
Instead, the fact that suppressing this information is incompatible with the university's obligation and retaining patents would give the university a motive for suppressing this information (as stated in the third sentence of the stimulus) is the reason why universities should not be entitled to those patents.
Another way to approach the argument is to "zoom out" and ask yourself why did someone make this argument. What does this person want to convince us of, etc.? For example, in this case, imagine that someone is perhaps making this argument before Congress or before the patent office. What is this person trying to accomplish? They are trying to argue that "a university should not be entitled to patent the inventions of its faculty members." That's the key idea/main point. The statement about "the fact that suppressing this information is incompatible with the university's obligation" is only relevant insofar as it supports why universities shouldn't be entitled to these patents.
Yet another way to determine the main point is to imagine that we had the author of the argument in front of us and we asked this author to convey his or her point in one sentence. What does the author want us to believe or do? Here, it is to believe that universities shouldn't be entitled to these patents (and perhaps to vote to prohibit universities from being entitled to these patents).
Finally, there is a common pattern for many of the arguments that appear in these Method-AP questions. (It also sometimes appears in Main Point questions). The pattern is that the main conclusion appears at the beginning of the stimulus (without a conclusion indicator word), then the premises appear in the middle, and then an intermediate (or subsidiary) conclusion appears at the end (usually with a conclusion indicator word). The test makers probably do this because many people expect the conclusion to be at the end, so it is easy to mistake the intermediate conclusion for the main conclusion. This argument is a perfect example of this pattern. Of course, these arguments don't always follow this pattern, so you must still double-check the logical structure of the argument, but knowing the pattern can be helpful in spotting it when it does occur.
First, wrong answers in Method -Argument Part questions often describe other parts of the argument in the stimulus.
Here, Answer B would be correctly describing the second sentence in the stimulus. The statement that "universities ... should encourage the free flow of ideas and general dissemination of knowledge" is the principle that is used to support the conclusion.
It's also important to correctly identify the parts of the argument in the stimulus prior to reading the question, and certainly prior to reading the answers.
It is important to understand how the logic flows in this argument (just like every argument) and Dave's explanation illustrates exactly how to test how the logic flows.
Simply put, the first sentence in the argument does not support the last sentence. That logic would be backwards. The claim that "a university should not be entitled to patent the inventions of its faculty members" does not support the claim that "suppressing information concerning discoveries is incompatible with the university's obligation to promote the free flow of ideas."
Instead, the fact that suppressing this information is incompatible with the university's obligation and retaining patents would give the university a motive for suppressing this information (as stated in the third sentence of the stimulus) is the reason why universities should not be entitled to those patents.
Another way to approach the argument is to "zoom out" and ask yourself why did someone make this argument. What does this person want to convince us of, etc.? For example, in this case, imagine that someone is perhaps making this argument before Congress or before the patent office. What is this person trying to accomplish? They are trying to argue that "a university should not be entitled to patent the inventions of its faculty members." That's the key idea/main point. The statement about "the fact that suppressing this information is incompatible with the university's obligation" is only relevant insofar as it supports why universities shouldn't be entitled to these patents.
Yet another way to determine the main point is to imagine that we had the author of the argument in front of us and we asked this author to convey his or her point in one sentence. What does the author want us to believe or do? Here, it is to believe that universities shouldn't be entitled to these patents (and perhaps to vote to prohibit universities from being entitled to these patents).
Finally, there is a common pattern for many of the arguments that appear in these Method-AP questions. (It also sometimes appears in Main Point questions). The pattern is that the main conclusion appears at the beginning of the stimulus (without a conclusion indicator word), then the premises appear in the middle, and then an intermediate (or subsidiary) conclusion appears at the end (usually with a conclusion indicator word). The test makers probably do this because many people expect the conclusion to be at the end, so it is easy to mistake the intermediate conclusion for the main conclusion. This argument is a perfect example of this pattern. Of course, these arguments don't always follow this pattern, so you must still double-check the logical structure of the argument, but knowing the pattern can be helpful in spotting it when it does occur.