A university should not be entitled to patent the inventions of its faculty members. Universities, as guarantors of i...

Mehran March 3, 2016

Hi @B, thanks for your question. The word "clearly" can actually introduce either a conclusion or a premise. Let's break down the stimulus here--by reordering the sentences.

Premise: Universities, as guarantors of intellectual freedom, should encourage the free flow of ideas and the general dissemination of knowledge.

Premise: Yet a university that retains the right to patent the inventions of its faculty members has a motive to suppress information about a potentially valuable discovery until the patent for it has been secured.

Premise: Clearly, suppressing information concerning such discoveries is incompatible with the university's obligation to promote the free flow of ideas.

Conclusion: A university should not be entitled to patent the inventions of its faculty members.

The LSAT writers do often put conclusions first (or buried in the middle). They mix things up to test your ability to follow the logical arc of an argument. Do you see how the conclusion is supported by the various premises? And not the other way around?

Hope this helps! Please let us know if you have any additional questions.

21mhunter21 January 24, 2018

So the last sentence is a premise, and not a subsidiary conclusion?

Mehran January 24, 2018

Hi @21mhunter21, thanks for your post. A subsidiary conclusion is supported by one or more premises; in turn, that subsidiary conclusion supports the ultimate conclusion. In this way, a subsidiary conclusion can be understood to function like premises do.

Here, in evaluating the last sentence, you should ask yourself: is this sentence supported by one or more of the other premises? I think it is, as follows:

SC: Clearly, suppressing information concerning such discoveries is incompatible with the university's obligation to promote the free flow of ideas. [Why? Because:]
P1: Universities, as guarantors of intellectual freedom, should encourage the free flow of ideas and the general dissemination of knowledge. [And]
P2: Yet a university that retains the right to patent the inventions of its faculty members has a motive to suppress information about a potentially valuable discovery until the patent for it has been secured.

Hope this helps! Please let us know if you have any additional questions.

hales June 18, 2019

So, to clarify, a subsidiary conclusion functions as a premise - as it also works to support the ultimate conclusion - but it also develops a conclusion within itself? (as it is will be supported by at least one of the premises?)

Victoria June 19, 2019

Hi @hales

That's exactly right! A subsidiary conclusion can be considered a premise in that it works to support the main conclusion but can also be considered a conclusion in and of itself as it is supported by at least one of the premises and, in the absence of a main conclusion, could stand on its own as the conclusion of the passage.

Hope this helps! Please let us know if you have any further questions.