分享建议使用官方纸质指南，查看对照完整题目
Because the framers of the United States Constitution (written in 1787) believed that protecting property rights relating to inventions would encourage the new nation’s economic growth, they gave Congress—the national legislature—a constitutional mandate to grant patents for inventions. The resulting patent system has served as a model for those in other nations. Recently, however, scholars have questioned whether the American system helped achieve the framers’ goals. These scholars have contended that from 1794 to roughly 1830, American inventors were unable to enforce property rights because judges were “antipatent” and routinely invalidated patents for arbitrary reasons. This argument is based partly on examination of court decisions in cases where patent holders (“patentees”)brought suit alleging infringement of their patent rights. In the 1820s, for instance, 75 percent of verdicts were decided against the patentee.The proportion of verdicts for the patentee began to increase in the 1830s, suggesting to these scholars that judicial attitudes toward patent rights began shifting then.
Not all patent disputes in the early nineteenth entury were litigated, however, and litigated cases were not drawn randomly from the population of disputes. Therefore the rate of verdicts in favor of patentees cannot be used by itself to gauge changes in judicial attitudes or enforceability of patent rights. If early judicial decisions were prejudiced against patentees, one might expect that subsequent courts—allegedly more supportive of patent rights—would reject the former legal precedents. But pre-1830 cases have been cited as frequently as later decisions, and they continue to be cited today,suggesting that the early decisions, many of which clearly declared that patent rights were a just recompense for inventive ingenuity,provided a lasting foundation for patent law.The proportion of judicial decisions in favor of patentees began to increase during the 1830s because of a change in the underlying population of cases brought to trial. This change was partly due to an 1836 revision to the patent system:an examination procedure, still in use today, was instituted in which each application is scrutinized for its adherence to patent law. Previously,patents were automatically granted upon payment of a $30 fee.
【OG20-P455-595题】
The author of the passage cites which of the following as evidence challenging the argument referred to in highlight lines
-
分析A选项
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -
分析B选项
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-
分析C选项
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-
分析D选项
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-
分析E选项
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- 网友解析
我有更好的解析 
暂无雷哥网文字解析
通篇读下来其实说的就是：
有一些学者认为法官对专利是有偏见的，而且他们的态度还在变化，也就导致了专利法案的通过与否，1830年是个结点
但是作者认为专利法案通过与否跟法官态度没有关系，他们一直在公正执法，按照专利法执行相关案子，是因为专利法本身的调整才导致1830年前后的区别（你看，1830年之后的法庭还是会使用1830年前的案例，如果真的是1830年前讨厌专利那肯定就不会用了呀，这不就说明他们对专利的喜好没有变化吗）
题目讨论 （10条评论）
-
275476gao
第二段即作者的观点，他/她的证据就是：如果说法官是有偏见的话，那么会拒绝引用以前的判例(reject the former legal precedents)，话锋一转，一个but来了，即事实是，法官官当时引用以前的例子的频率和后来是一样的，法官并无偏见。
1
0
回复
2022-06-19 15:27:57
-
275476gao
为什么选C不选D 题干问作为反驳高亮句子的证据为什么？ 高亮句子和C选项才是本文的矛盾点所在——75%对专利人不利的比例是法官的锅？还是这就是公平的审判呢？ 第一段意思就是说学者们啊（老观点，作者后文要怼的）说当初法官不行，有偏见，这才造成了这么高的比例； 第二段直接上however（注意作者表明观点了哈），这就是没问题的，你看嘛，法官当时引用以前的例子的频率和后来是一样的，即确确实实是按照宪法（判例法）来的 而D呢，只是说1836年的修正案给专利权上了一个保险，加进来了申请审查制度，让那些钻法律漏洞的或者垃圾专利离得远远的，这才导致基本盘（文中的underlying polulation of cases）大换血，从而让有利于专利人胜诉的比例增加罢了，因为以前30刀就可迅速搞到专利权
0
0
回复
2022-06-19 15:19:00
-
275476gao回复275476gao
改一下，证据为何？ “为什么”好像会引起误会
0
0
回复
2022-06-19 15:21:00
-
-
ziqi
要从整体上把握文章，尽量不要用排除法！
0
0
回复
2022-04-11 11:22:26
-
ziqi
嘻嘻嘻521 第一段提出一派学者的观点，根据专利者胜诉比例判断专利权的司法态度，该派学者认为1830s后支持专利者的裁决比例增加，是因为司法态度这个时期转变为利好。第二段作者批判了这个观点，立刻指出胜诉比例不反应司法态度，接着进一步说明，pre-1830 cases经常被后人引用因为它奠定了专利法的基础（说明了司法态度一直都没有变的 ，就是第3题考点，选B），最后作者指出专利者胜诉比例的提高的真正原因，是多了一道上庭前筛除歪瓜裂枣的程序，所以不是司法态度的转变。感觉这篇阅读非常有GMAT阅读逻辑结构代表性的-----引用网友
0
0
回复
2022-04-11 11:21:47
-
钟迎Grace
as evidence challenging the argument 意思是作为论点来反对这个argument, 而这个argument是指against patentees判决不公的。 怎么去反对这个argument，最好的方式就是在后面提到了，到1830年还在沿用以前的案例做参考。所以说明没有against patentees.
0
0
回复
2020-12-04 22:16:54
-
170605ehvb
解析一坨屎一样，和没说有啥区别
14
1
回复
2020-05-22 00:50:40
-
iloveeva
什么是第几结构第几层次
2
0
回复
2019-02-26 02:50:13
-
234630hgst回复iloveeva
哈哈哈
0
0
回复
2020-09-24 20:43:33
-
-
嘻嘻嘻521
第一段提出一派学者的观点，根据专利者胜诉比例判断专利权的司法态度，该派学者认为1830s后支持专利者的裁决比例增加，是因为司法态度这个时期转变为利好。第二段作者批判了这个观点，立刻指出胜诉比例不反应司法态度，接着进一步说明，pre-1830 cases经常被后人引用因为它奠定了专利法的基础（说明了司法态度一直都没有变的 ，就是第3题考点，选B），最后作者指出专利者胜诉比例的提高的真正原因，是多了一道上庭前筛除歪瓜裂枣的程序，所以不是司法态度的转变。感觉这篇阅读非常有GMAT阅读逻辑结构代表性的-----引用网友
6
0
回复
2018-12-08 23:06:03
-
234630hgst回复嘻嘻嘻521
谢谢，感觉茅塞顿开
0
0
回复
2020-09-24 21:05:22
-
-
anthony2333
先定位要反驳的观点：These scholars have contended that from 1794 to roughly 1830, American inventors were unable to enforce property rights because judges were “antipatent”and routinely invalidated patents for arbitrary reasons. 专利拥有者维权失败是因为法官有偏见，会无故驳回诉讼。文中反驳该观点的论据有两处，一是说明该阶段的诉讼不具有代表性，不够；一是说明1830年前后诉讼判决被引用的概率相同。选项C正是文章提出的第二个论据。
A. The proportion of cases that were decided against patentees in the 1820s
这个比例是用来支持学者观点的
B. The total number of patent disputes that were litigated from 1794 to 1830
文章没给出这个number
C. The fact that later courts drew upon the legal precedents set in pre-1830 patent cases
D. The fact that the proportion ofjudicial decisions in favor of patentees began to increase during the 1830s
这个事实也是用来支持学者观点的
E. The constitutional rationale for the 1836 revision of the patent system
文章没有给出1836年修订专利法的理论依据
选C
1
0
回复
2018-11-29 16:41:41
-
发呆的夜之亡魂
第一第二段的观点是对立的，然后划黄线部分是第一个观点的部分，而且讲的是1830s之前的东西然后作者是反对这个观点的，然后就定位第二段，发现只有C能对应。读文章的时候我发现第二段讲到了好几个和第一段对立的观点以及一些对应时间，所以稍微记一下回来对应也就不难了
0
0
回复
2018-06-27 10:22:46
周末、晚班滚动开班 
24+35+35+6课时 
