I'm finding that when I answer gmat critical reasoning questions, i approach them like lsat questions and tend to get them wrong. This primarily happens in 'find the assumption' questions. The patents question in the critical reasoning question bank is a perfect example. In that case, the explanation states that the moral hazard is the only assumption that makes the argument that licensing patents will solve the issue of consumer protection. In Lsat world, the assumption would be to find how licenses and patents are similar and serve the same purpose, or highlight why license or patents could be considered similar. However, the correct answer states the assumption is that we care about the end consumer. To me, this assumption is ancillary to the meat of the argument, but happens to also be the correct answer. Can you provide any advice on how to handle assumption questions in the GMAT vs. the LSAT?

Thanks,
Rachna

You pose an interesting question. I am not familiar with the LSAT's version of similar questions. However, this argument does NOT presuppose that patents and licenses are similar. In fact, there is a clearly defined difference, as patents grant protections and licenses selectively revoke those protections.

The easiest way for you to proceed:

Stay VERY close to the conclusion. Here the conclusion is that companies "SHOULD" do such and such. Why? The only evidence given was that it would be better for consumers. For this conclusion to be true, then, it is presupposed that companies should do what would be better for consumers. After all, no other evidence has been offered in support of this claim.