Here we have a strengthen with necessary premise question. Remember that a premise is necessary for a conclusion if the falsity of the premise guarantees or brings about the falsity of the conclusion. First we check to see if the answer choice strengthens the passage, and then, if it does strengthen, we negate the answer choice to see if its negation makes the argument fall apart. If the answer choice does both those things then it is our correct answer.
Conclusion: a university should not be entitled to patent the inventions of its faculty members.
Why? Universities should encourage the free flow of ideas and the general dissemination of knowledge, but 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. And we are told that suppressing information concerning these discoveries does not work with the university's obligation to promote the free flow of ideas.
Answer choice (D) states: "Universities that have a motive to suppress information concerning discoveries by their faculty members will occasionally act on that motive."
Does this strengthen the argument? Yes.
This helps further the notion that the universities are not only motivated to suppress information, which is incompatible with their obligation to promote a free flow of ideas, but that they are actually acting on these motives, thus, they should not be entitled to patent inventions of their faculty members, since their motivations cause them to actually suppress information.
Negation: Universities that have a motive to suppress information concerning discoveries by their faculty members will never act on that motive.
Does the negation make the argument fall apart? Yes.
If the motives of the universities that retain the right to patent are merely motives and never actions, then the universities"despite their motives--will never actually suppress information concerning "such discoveries," and so their actions will not be incompatible with their obligation to promote the free flow of ideas.
Therefore, if the negation of answer choice (D) were true, then the conclusion of the argument would no longer necessarily stand since universities being entitled to patent inventions of its faculty members would not lead to suppressing the free flow of ideas.
Hope that helps! Please let us know if you have any other questions.
