please help!

I think it's A. The expenditure is referring to the resident in my opinion.

1. per capita expenditure on prescription drug increased by 15% or more anually.

2. ministry prohibited the manufacturers to increase the price. (price freeze)

Conclusion: still per capita expenditure on prescription drug increased.

2 says... population increased... but still if the population is increased.. they are buying the same drug... (constant price)
this doesnt prove that per capita expenditure on prescription drug increase by substantial %

but if manufacturers produce a new drug replacing existing drug then per capita expenditure on prescription drug will surely increase....

Hope this will help:

By replacing old medications with new medication you can register high price from the beginning and not to increase it further. Also you can eliminate old medicines (they are usually cheaper) mking the whole treatment more costly

So if the old medicine is replaced with new medicine, how is it possible to jack up the price on the new medication if there is a price freeze?

medea66 wrote:So if the old medicine is replaced with new medicine, how is it possible to jack up the price on the new medication if there is a price freeze?

The new medicine comes to market at a higher price to begin with. The manufacturer can stop producing the old medicine and force consumers to buy the new, more expensive medice.

HTH

your choice weakens the argument rather than strengthen it.

in all choices,
only A support. A expresses that resident expenditure on drug still rise because of changed medication from drug manufacturers.
rest out of scope.

Well I feel A is the answer. I guess I'm right. If some expert could