Thanks for the question! It is certainly possible to think of the statement, “A university should not be entitled to patent the inventions of its faculty members,” as a principle that should be followed. However, as you noted, it is clearly the main conclusion of the passage. The passage argues that since suppressing information about discoveries is incompatible with the university’s obligation to promote the free flow of ideas, a university shouldn’t be entitled to patent its faculty members’ inventions. However, (B) tells us that this first sentence is a principle from which the conclusion is derived, which implies that the conclusion is elsewhere in the passage. But we know that this sentence is the conclusion: it can’t be both the conclusion, and a principle from which the conclusion is derived. Since we need to pick the best answer on the LSAT, (B) is certainly incorrect, and (A) is the correct answer. The first sentence doesn’t do anything to support or derive any of the other sentences in the passage, precisely because it is the conclusion that all the other sentences in the passage support.
Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any further questions that you might have.
