Q15

[esultana]

I found this question challenging. It felt like all the answers were quite similar. I ended up choosing B. I can see now how answer C may be better, but at the time of the PT I had trouble choosing between the two.

[csunnerberg13]

If you know a good reason why one of the titles in the pair definitively does not work, then you know that cannot be your answer choice.

(A) I think you could justify the title for passage A here. But the second title for B is not a good title. The whole purpose of B isn't to state that patents need to be eliminated. The author may think that and it seems likely that he did. But that's too narrow for a title because the author is mainly concerned with saying, "Despite the fact that we think patents are bad, we still have to adopt this strategy to cope with patents that involves us stockpiling them."

(B) Once again, the second title here is terrible and could never apply. The author in B isn't defending software patents. He's saying he doesn't like them but must use them.

(C) works. A is about the scope of patents and that scope is determined by how the "obviousness" of the invention is defined. B is about how patents must be used as a defensive strategy.

(D) "Misunderstanding" isn't a very good word for passage A - he's more talking about misuse. And Passage B definitely isn't talking about keeping it "free but safe" - it's just describing a policy it's taking to protect itself, but it still won't be "free" as they want it to be

(E) has a decent title for passage B and one that might work...but the title for A isn't good - we're not talking about the deterrent against patent lawsuits except for briefly in the third paragraph, as an example of further extension of the abuse of the patent system.

hope that helps

[erikwoodward10]

Isn't C too broad in the title for the first? "Patenting the Obvious" only covers the first two paragraphs--it completely omits the discussion on stockpiling, and why software patents are so vulnerable to abuse.

Furthermore, E seems spot on. "Developing a credible deterrent" seems like a great title for A, and is even a direct quote from paragraph 3. Passage B could certainly be called an apology, the author addresses the hypocrisy of stockpiling and says that they're doing it "reluctantly". Thoughts?

[e.sterlingsmith]

Isn't C too broad in the title for the first? "Patenting the Obvious" only covers the first two paragraphs--it completely omits the discussion on stockpiling, and why software patents are so vulnerable to abuse.

Furthermore, E seems spot on. "Developing a credible deterrent" seems like a great title for A, and is even a direct quote from paragraph 3. Passage B could certainly be called an apology, the author addresses the hypocrisy of stockpiling and says that they're doing it "reluctantly". Thoughts?

I thought this as well and was stuck between C and E. Ended up picking E. Any further insight as to why E is wrong?

[andrewgong01]

Isn't C too broad in the title for the first? "Patenting the Obvious" only covers the first two paragraphs--it completely omits the discussion on stockpiling, and why software patents are so vulnerable to abuse.

Furthermore, E seems spot on. "Developing a credible deterrent" seems like a great title for A, and is even a direct quote from paragraph 3. Passage B could certainly be called an apology, the author addresses the hypocrisy of stockpiling and says that they're doing it "reluctantly". Thoughts?

I thought this as well and was stuck between C and E. Ended up picking E. Any further insight as to why E is wrong?

Might be late but here's why I think "E" can be ruled out

For "Developing... a deterrent"

I don't "A"''s main point was on how do we develop a deterrent. A does not spell out specific steps to take to develop a deterrent. Instead A only talks about deterrence in the context of how the current situation has led to the deterrence/arms race situtation ; however, the passage does not then focus on the best strategies on how to develop this stockpile of patents. It does talk a bit about it but it is not the main point.


For "Apology to our customers":

The passage does not make it that obvious that it was to customers. It sure does read like some public relations message but nothing in it makes us see it as it is to customers. In fact, this could just as well as be a letter to shareholders, which I think is actually a better fit because Passage B is defending a new position it is taking and appeals to the choices of its competitors, which sounds like something you would tell your shareholders behind a huge move. At the same time, this could also be a letter draft to the board of directors from the management to explain themselves. In fact, it could be a letter from upper management to employees as an internal memo. In short, it is not that clear cut if this was meant to be addressed to customers; what we do know is that it is meant to be read by stakeholder of the company - but is it the customer? the shareholder, the employees, the board ? the media? etc etc

Even if we find some word that points to it being written to the customer, the other key issue is that is it an apology? It may still be a stretch not least because there is no direct "sorry". I think it is more so of a passage that defends and justifies a stance and it is a bit too far to extend that to saying it is an apology. I think there is a degree of regret within Passage B against taking the path it did take but I am not so sure if we can then say they are apologising for the action