Sentence Correction

Because a manufacturer secures a patent for a pharmaceutical compound, the patent does not bar competitors from producing a chemical like it, as long as those chemicals have at least one structural difference with the patented compound.


Because a manufacturer secures a patent for a pharmaceutical compound, the patent does not bar competitors from producing a chemical like it, as long as those chemicals have at least one structural difference with the patented compound

That a manufacturer has secured a patent for one of its pharmaceutical compounds do not bar competitors from producing similar chemicals and having at least one important difference from the patented compound

A patent for one of a manufacturer's pharmaceutical compounds does not bar competitors from producing a chemical like the patented compound, as long as the two differ structurally in at least one way

When securing a patent for one of a manufacturer's pharmaceutical compounds, competitors are not barred from the production of chemicals such as the patented compound, provided that there is at least one structural difference

Even if a manufacturer secures a patent for one of its pharmaceutical compounds, this does not bar competitors from the production of a chemical such as the patented compound, but having at least one structural difference from it

Because a manufacturer secures a patent for a pharmaceutical compound, the patent does not bar competitors from producing a chemical like it, as long as those chemicals have at least one structural difference with the patented compound

That a manufacturer has secured a patent for one of its pharmaceutical compounds do not bar competitors from producing similar chemicals and having at least one important difference from the patented compound

A patent for one of a manufacturer's pharmaceutical compounds does not bar competitors from producing a chemical like the patented compound, as long as the two differ structurally in at least one way - Valid

When securing a patent for one of a manufacturer's pharmaceutical compounds, competitors are not barred from the production of chemicals such as the patented compound, provided that there is at least one structural difference

Even if a manufacturer secures a patent for one of its pharmaceutical compounds, this does not bar competitors from the production of a chemical such as the patented compound, [color=]but having at least[/color] one structural difference from it

For C i was skeptical about differ structurally in becuase prefered idiom is differ from but i guess differ in works
Ans - C

A--"it" is ambiguous; "difference with" is unidiomatic

B--"do not bar" is an agreement error

C--correct (we can use "differ in" because we're not comparing two items (where we'd need "differ from"); rather, we're describing that underlying difference)

D--modifier error; competitors are not securing a patent for a manufacturer's compound

E--the ending clause is incorrect

How is 'A patent for ....' is correct? Doesn't 'A patent of ...' sound better?

The company is securing the patent for the product, not securing the patent of the product.

Hi Bill,
Isn't the usage of 'this' by itself sufficient to kill (E)? that's how I eliminated it.

I think that would be safe to say. "This" is ambiguous.

A patent for one of a manufacturer's pharmaceutical compounds does not bar competitors from producing a chemical like the patented compound, as long as the two differ structurally in at least one way

Is this correct? - A patent for one of a manufacturer's pharmaceutical compounds...

I marked it wrong because I felt it should be - A patent for one of the manufacturer's pharmaceutical compounds...[/quote]

I have read that one of requires plural noun after it - but in
A patent for "one of a" manufacturer's pharmaceutical compounds... OPTION C(OA)

How do we justify "one of a XX Compounds" as plural noun, moreover "one of a" also seems awkward.

Please enlighten.

all is underlined

the good strategy is to try to get the intended meaing when reading only the original choices.

this stategy is good for all -is -underlined questions but also good for other types of questions.

after reading and trying the understand the intended meaning, there are 2 cases happening.

- we understand the intended meaning. this is great
- we understad part of the meaning and realize the unclear/illogic part of the original sentence

now we are armed with one of 2 above things before reading answer choices. The realization of error will be much easier.


normally for all is underlince the idea A, idea B, and idea C is rearranged to make the illogic sentences. try to make the logic sequence when reading only the original will help much.