Examkin

Question

Difficulty: MediumEvaluating Passage Arguments and Claims

For decades, economic historians argued that the rapid proliferation of corporate R&D laboratories in early twentieth-century America was driven primarily by industrial firms seeking to internalize market innovations and shield proprietary knowledge from competitors. Under this traditional model, internal laboratories allowed conglomerates to streamline technological development while minimizing transaction costs associated with licensing external patents. However, recent archival analysis of industrial patent filings between 1910 and 1930 suggests a more nuanced dynamic. Researchers observed that firms establishing in-house laboratories actually increased their licensing of university-developed patents by over forty percent during the same period.

Historian Evelyn Vance contends that rather than functioning as isolated intellectual fortresses, early corporate laboratories served primarily as "absorptive capacity engines." According to Vance's thesis, internal research capabilities enabled firms to accurately evaluate, acquire, and commercialize complex scientific discoveries generated outside their boundaries. Without sophisticated in-house scientists, firms lacked the technical knowledge necessary to gauge the viability of external technological breakthroughs. Consequently, Vance argues, the primary economic driver behind corporate laboratory expansion was not defensive isolationism, but the strategic necessity of facilitating external technological integration.

Which of the following, if true, would most directly weaken Vance's argument regarding the primary economic driver behind the expansion of early corporate research laboratories?

  1. During the period studied, firms that lacked internal research laboratories successfully licensed and commercialized university-developed patents at rates comparable to firms with extensive internal laboratories.Answer
  2. B
    Industrial firms with larger internal research budgets consistently commercialized a higher percentage of university-licensed patents than did firms with smaller internal research budgets.
  3. C
    University research departments in the early twentieth century received the majority of their operational funding from government grants rather than private corporate sponsorships.
  4. D
    Many early corporate laboratories routinely failed to generate profitable internal patents during their initial years of operation.
  5. E
    Traditional economic historians maintained that internal corporate laboratories were primarily established to eliminate all financial interactions with external academic institutions.

Answer

The option stating that firms lacking internal laboratories successfully licensed and commercialized university patents at rates comparable to firms with internal laboratories.
The correct answer directly attacks Vance's core premise: that internal laboratories were necessary for firms to evaluate and integrate external technological innovations. If firms without internal research laboratories were able to license and commercialize university patents at identical rates, then internal laboratories were not a strategic necessity for absorptive capacity, severely undermining Vance's proposed explanation for why laboratories expanded.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify Vance's core argument and underlying premise
Vance argues that early corporate laboratories were built primarily as 'absorptive capacity engines' because internal technical expertise was a necessary prerequisite for evaluating and integrating external university patents.
To weaken an argument, one must identify the central logical leap between the evidence and the author's conclusion.
2
Determine the condition required to weaken this specific causal claim
Finding evidence that internal laboratories were not actually required to successfully evaluate, acquire, or commercialize external patents would undermine the claim that absorptive capacity was the primary driver of lab expansion.
If the outcome occurs just as effectively without the presumed necessary cause, the necessity claim fails.
3
Evaluate the answer choices against the required weakening condition
The correct choice demonstrates that firms without internal labs achieved identical success in licensing and commercializing university patents, proving internal labs were not necessary for that purpose.
This directly refutes Vance's premise that internal scientific capabilities were required to facilitate external technological integration.

Key Concept

Evaluating Passage Arguments and Claims
Rate this question

Topics

Evaluating Passage Arguments and Claims

More questions from this topic