*A new law gives ownership of patents—documents providing exclusive right to make and sell an invention—to universities, not the government, when those patents result from government-sponsored university research. Administrators at Logos University plan to sell any patents they acquire to corporations in order to fund programs to improve undergraduate teaching
*see the RED part . Does it happen in real life ? In my opinion whenever govt sponsor any project , normally they have the right on the product invented…but here I see University can have the exclusive right to sell the product even though the project is govt sponsored.
Does it happen really ? this is a very interesting fact . Do you have any examples .
*The commissioner of the Fish and Game Authority would have the public believe that increases in the number of marine fish caught **demonstrate **that this resource is no longer endangered. *
this sentence is quirky…how come it is **demonstrated **?
is it because marine fish are caught so they are not endangered ?
in other words, is it because marine fish are available yet so they are not endangered ?
well, if something is available yet , we can not say that they are no longer endangered…may be it could vanish within few years !
this sentence is quirky …Am I missing anything here ?
The sentence leaves out some information that the reader is expected to infer. This really doesn’t have anything to do with the language it’s written in.
I would take it to mean:
The commissioner of the Fish and Game Authority would have the public believe that increases in the number of marine fish caught*, using the same degree of effort, are large enough to** demonstrate that this resource is no longer endangered.*
I do. The general policy of the United States government is that anyone, whether in academia or industry, who develops an invention (“intellectual property”) while working under a government contract or grant retains the rights to that invention. The “catch” is that, although the inventor retains the rights, the government gets a royalty-free license to use the invention. Here’s a document that explains some of the policy. It says, in part,
No, you’ve pretty much got it. However, a nuance here is the construction “…would have the public believe that…” This is a polite way of indicating skepticism on the part of the author.
For example, I could write: “themajestic says that if something is available yet, it could still vanish within few years.”
This is a simple restatement of what you said above, and it’s neutral in tone.
However, if I write: “themajestic would have us believe that if something is available yet, it could still vanish within few years.” then my statement is no longer neutral in tone. I’m still restating what you said, but implying skepticism of your statement.
In the original quote from your post, the author is hoping you, the reader, will make the same logical deductions that you actually did. The author is implying skepticism of the commissioner’s argument, which means the author is skeptical that there is any “demonstration” of the viability of the marine fish. And he’s skeptical because, as you say, the availability–even the increase in availability–of a species does not necessarily mean it’s no longer endangered.
The commissioner of the Fish and Game Authority would have the public believe that increases in the number of marine fish caught demonstrate that this resource is no longer endangered. This is a specious argument, as unsound as it would be to assert that the ever-increasing rate at which rain forests are being cut down demonstrates a lack of danger to that resource.
I’m getting confused how “rain forests” coming into this . …is this a analogy ?
>>ever-increasing rate at which rain forests are being cut down
ok
>>>demonstrates a lack of danger to that resource.
why ? this is really dangerous ! …people are cutting down trees…this will be endangered very soon if cutting down with high rate.
This does not look like a perfect analogy to me.
Commissioner Vs Rain forest Vs endangered …now it becomes complicated.
“The commissioner of the Fish and Game Authority would have the public believe that increases in the number of marine fish caught demonstrate that this resource is no longer endangered. This is a specious argument, as unsound as it would be to assert that the ever-increasing rate at which rain forests are being cut down demonstrates a lack of danger to that resource.”
The person who wrote this is making the same point I made above but by analogy rather than supplying the missing qualifying conditions.
The fish example is probably demonstrated provided that:
a) You are making the same effort - if it takes ten time the effort the argument fails.
b) The increases are sufficiently large - if the increase is only 0.1% then the argument fails.
Also, of course, the sample size needs to be sufficient.
What qpw3141 said, but also realize that the author and the commissioner are on different sides. The author wants you, the reader, to conclude that, since the “rainforest” argument makes no sense, then the commissioner’s argument makes no sense. The analogy here is that both arguments are dumb.
In the country of Veltria, the past two years’ broad economic recession has included a business downturn in the clothing trade, where sales are down by about 7 percent as compared to two years ago. Clothing wholesalers have found, however, that the proportion of credit extended to retailers that was paid off on time fell sharply in the first year of the recession but returned to its prerecession level in the second year.
I’m not comfortable with this wording “proportion of credit extended to retailers” .
what credit ? I know credit = deposit . Example: your account has been credited with 300$
But what is this credit we are talking about here ? what is proportion of credit ?
Does it trying to say Cloth wholesalers deposited money into retailer’s acoount ! which does not make sense.
The word “credit” has multiple meanings. As you said, if you credit an account, the account balance goes up and it means the account owner has more money. But when you see the word “extend” near “credit”, it’s used in the sense of “X extends a line of credit to Y”. This means that X has offered Y the opportunity to buy something (from X or someone else) now but pay for it at a later time or in installments (usually with interest). Examples are credit cards, mortgages, car loans, and, in this case, a wholesaler sending merchandise to a retailer to sell without paying first.
Right. “The proportion of credit extended to retailers” is just part of the phrase, and contains only part of the meaning. The entire phrase is “the proportion of credit extended to retailers that was paid off on time.” It’s confusing because two concepts are literally mixed together: the “credit extended to retailers” and the “proportion that was paid off on time.”
“The proportion of credit extended to retailers that was paid off on time” = “of credit extended to retailers, the proportion that was paid off on time.”
I’m finding it hard still …here I’m revisiting the same… Clothing wholesalers have found, however, that the proportion of credit extended to retailers that was paid off on time fell sharply in the first year of the recession but returned to its prerecession level in the second year.
As per my understanding after reading your comments , the summary goes like this
Clothing wholesalers offered retailers to buy Cloths now but pay for it at a later time or in installments (usually with interest).
In the first year of recession many retailer could NOT pay back ( fell sharply) wholesalers .
But In the second year many retailer were able to pay back wholesalers.
ok …fine . the BIG question is what magic happened in second year so that retailer could pay back ?
see what the passage says …
Of the considerable number of clothing retailers in Veltria who were having fi nancial difficulties before the start of the recession, virtually all were forced to go out of business during its first year.
This is where I’m stuck. Things does not look promising.
IF all of them to go out of business , how come they pay in second year ? I’m confusing at this part.
I don’t know. My guess would be one of the following:
The clothing retailers that went out of business went bankrupt, and their assets were sold to pay off their creditors (including the wholesalers) as far as possible. So the wholesalers either got their money back or (more likely) had to write off some portion of the credit. In any case, from a business perspective, the credit extended to the out-of-business retailers simply does not exist any more, because the retailers themselves do not exist any more.
-or-
Just because the credit was not “paid off on time” doesn’t mean it wasn’t paid off at all. The credit could have been paid only a week or two late, meaning virtually no credit was outstanding at the end of the year.
-or-
The author is being unclear, and whe he says “the proportion of credit extended to retailers that was paid off on time fell sharply in the first year of the recession” he means “the proportion of credit extended to retailers in the first year of the recession that was paid off on time fell sharply.” In other words, he’s implicitly discounting the outstanding credit, and in year two only considering credit that was newly extended.
Studies in restaurants show that the tips left by customers who pay their bill in cash tend to be larger when the bill is presented on a tray that bears a credit-card logo. Consumer psychologists hypothesize that simply seeing a credit-card logo makes many credit-card holders willing to spend more because it reminds them that their spending power exceeds the cash they have immediately available.
What I understand is , say two customer , C1 and C2
C1 pays the bill by cash and tips R1 $ by cash
C2 pays the bill by credit card and tips R2 $ by cash .
According to argument , R2 > R1 …i.e tips is larger when bill payment is done by Credit Card.
I have little doubt in the last statement .
should I read this way …
…*their spending power exceeds the cash * …
OR
…their spending power exceeds the cash
This line is not clear. …every Credit Cards has purchase limit …is that same as spending power here ? Also, how cash is connected to spending power exceeds here…cash is only connected to the tips left by customer here in this context.
In fact, I don’t understand the meaning “spending power exceeds the cash”
What are you intending as the difference between those?
If you just have £5 in cash then your spending power is £5.
If you have £5 in cash and a credit card with a £1000 limit of which you have used £800, then your total spending power is £205.
I have to agree that the hypothesis in the sentence you quoted doesn’t make a great deal of sense. Whilst it’s true that a customer’s total spending power is greater than the cash they have on them, what would concern them on that score, if anything, would be how much cash they would be left with after the transaction.
I think customer psychology they are trying to say works this way…
bill is presented on a tray that bears a credit-card logo ----> customer thinks he can spend more ( spending power more) because he has a credit card in the wallet —he pays bill by credit card --tips by cash.
Now for the same customer without credit card works this way…
bill is presented on a tray that bears a credit-card logo ----> customer thinks he can NOT spend more ( spending power less ) because he does NOT have a credit card in the wallet —he pays bill by cash–tips by cash.
but anyway , the mindset of customer will vary from person to person though I agree …so, this hypothesis may not be always true.