Passage Summary: The author argues against gene patents, saying that finding something in nature isn't the same as creating it and that making a profit from this info is unethical.

Conclusion: It should be illegal to patent an organism's genes.

Reasoning: Discovering something does not make one an inventor, and profiting from genetic information is a selfish and irresponsible act.

Analysis: To justify this argument, we need a principle that connects the premises to the legal conclusion. The argument makes two distinct claims: one about the definition of an 'inventor' and one about the 'morality' of profit. We need a rule that says if something is a discovery rather than an invention, it shouldn't be patented, or perhaps that selfish/irresponsible acts should be illegal. Look for an answer that bridges the gap between these descriptive or moral claims and the prescriptive 'should be illegal' conclusion.