Answer choice (d)

@Boram, Happy to help. The stimulus concludes that a university should not be entitled to patent the inventions of its faculty members. The support for this conclusion is that patents equate to promoting a motive to suppress information/ideas, and this is incompatible with a university's obligation to promote the free flow of ideas. We're asked to identify an assumption the argument makes. This is a strengthen with a necessary premise question. We're looking for an answer choice that, if false, would make the argument fall apart. In other words, we're looking for an assumption that must be made by the argument in order for it to stand a chance. The stimulus states that a university "has a motive to suppress information about a potentially valuable discovery until the patent for it has been secured. Clearly, suppressing information concerning such discoveries is incompatible with the university's obligation to promote the free flow of ideas." There's a big gap there. Just because a university has a motive to do something doesn't mean that it will act on it. The author is assuming that they do act on this motive because that's the only way his argument can make any sense. Not all strengthen with a necessary premise questions are like this, where we can see the necessary assumption being made before even getting to the answers. So, in looking at the answers, we'll negate each to see if it wrecks our argument. Answer A is incorrect because its negation does not wreck the argument. If universities are not the only institutions that have an obligation to guarantee intellectual freedom, the argument is not destroyed. This is not a necessary premise. Answer B is incorrect because if less than half of inventions by university faculty members would be profitable if patented, the argument still stands and is not necessarily affected. Answer C is incorrect because if the publication of reports on research is not the only practical way to disseminate information concerning new discoveries, the argument can still stand and is not wrecked. Answer D is correct because it states the assumption we identified in our analysis as being one that is made in the argument. D states that universities have a motive to suppress information concerning discoveries by their faculty members will occasionally act on that motive. D's negation, universities that have a motive to suppress information concerning discoveries by their faculty members will never act on that motive, would make the argument fall apart. Remember the gap we saw in the argument between having a motive and acting on it? D picks up on this gap; it's true that the argument assumes that the universities will at least sometimes act on their motive. Answer E is incorrect because the argument is concerned with whether or not universities should be entitled to patent inventions, not whether or not a faculty member would patent his or her invention. This answer choice is not assumed by the argument and is incorrect. Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any additional questions!