Self-paced
Conclusion The current move to patent computer programs is a move in the wrong direction and should be stopped. ███ ██████ ██████ ███ ██████████ ████████ ██████ ██ ███████ ██████████ █████████ ████ █████████████ ███ ██ ████ █████ ████████████ ███████ ████ █ ████████████ ███ ████████ ███████ ██ ██████ ███ ██████████████ ██ █ ████████████
Argument Breakdown
The argument concludes that we should not move to patent computer programs. Why not? Because the original intention of the patent system was only to protect small inventors, not to give large corporations control over a methodology. And that's just what a computer program is: the implementation of a methodology.
Objective: Identify a Necessary Assumption
The argument's conclusion is about what "should" be the case, but its premises are strictly factual—that means we're dealing with a value judgment. To justify that leap of logic, it's necessary to assume that we should uphold the original intention of the patent system, or some equivalent judgment.
3.
Which one of the following ██ ██ ██████████ ██ █████ ███ ████████ ████████
a
Computer programs should ██ █████████ ███ ████ ██ █████ ████████████ ███ ██ ██████████ █████████ ██ █████
The argument isn't about who should develop computer programs, but about whether we should allow them to be patented. Those are two unrelated questions, so (A) isn't necessary.
b
Implementing a methodology ██████ ████████ ████ ████████ ██████ ████ ████ ████ ██████████
Although we might believe patent law has something to do with creativity, the argument never discusses creative effort. Since it's not a basis for the conclusion, it's not necessary to make any assumptions about creative effort.
c
The issue of ███████ ██ ███ ██ ██████ ████████ ████████ ████████ ███ ██████ ██████ ████ ████████ ████ ████ █████ ██████ ███████
Whether or not this is a brand-new problem makes no difference to the argument. The argument's appeal to the patent system's original intention doesn't depend on being the first such appeal.
d
Large corporations should ███ ████ ███████ ███ ███████████████ ██ ██████████████
(D) effectively tells us that we should uphold the patent system's original intent not to give large corporations control over methodologies. That bridges the gap to the value judgment in the conclusion, which is necessary for the argument to hold up.
e
Small-time inventors who ███████ ███ ████ ██ ██████ ████████ ████████ ███ ████████ ██ █████ ███ ████ ██████████
The argument isn't affected by what's in the best interests of small inventors. That's because the support is all about the patent system's original intention to only protect small inventors, and not to let large corporations control methodologies. That intention could run counter to inventors' interests without harming the argument.