Q17

[Dkrajewski30]

Here's my issue with #17: The wording of the question is vague. The way I interpreted it while doing the test was that the inventor describes an abstract idea for some invention, then the engineer drafts specifications for the prototype, and then the inventor produces the physical invention - in other words, he puts it into tangible form.

So on this interpretation, I thought the correct answer was B, which states that only the inventor is entitled to claim the invention as his intellectual property. Why? Because he made it into a tangible object. And on the tangible-object theory, this is what matters when it comes to ascribing ownership rights to people. Now, one might point out that on this theory, one can transfer the rights to someone else. But for all we know given the stim, the inventor keeps everything for himself and has no desire to transfer the rights to the engineer. So it seems justified to say the inventor's got all the rights.

However, the alternative interpretation is that '...produces the prototype using the engineer's own materials' actually implies that the engineer is the one making the invention into a tangible object. So on this interpretation, it'd be the engineer and not the inventor who gets all the intellectual property rights. Indeed, this is stated in A, which is the credited answer choice.

I just don't think LSAC worded this one clearly and it was open to interpretation. Any others agree? I do think it's clear that the engineer drafts the prototype specifications, but that's irrelevant to t-o theory when it comes down to ascribing ownership rights, as again, what matters is making the object tangible.

[ohthatpatrick]

Yeah, I see what you're saying.

The explanation for how LSAC is forcing the meaning behind (A) is grammatical in nature, so get ready to hear something fun!!

There are two clues that tell us the engineer is the one producing the prototype.

1. Only one comma
Compare these two sentences:
An inventor describes an innovative idea for an invention to an engineer, who volunteers to draft specifications and then produces the prototype using the engineer's own materials.
vs.
An inventor describes an innovative idea for an invention to an engineer, who volunteers to draft specifications, and then produces the prototype using the engineer's own materials.

The underlying concept here is parallelism. When you use the word "and" you're logically joining two ideas. In the first version, you're joining "volunteers and produces".

In the second version, you're joining "describes and produces".

2. "Engineer's own materials"
You wouldn't put that extra word in there unless you were trying to reinforce the reflexive nature that "the engineer produced the prototype using his own materials".

If the inventor were doing the producing, we would have just said that the inventor "produces the prototype using the engineer's materials."

Yay, grammar.

Hope this helps.

[Dkrajewski30]

Thanks. This is precisely the sort of explanation/clarification I was looking for, as I now understand the distinction.

Although, I still insist that it's not the most efficient, or concise writing on LSAC's part. I suppose it could have been purposely done to confuse people. It's probably the first question I've gotten wrong despite adequately understanding the logic behind it.