Weaken - drug patent issue

This topic has expert replies
User avatar
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 5:57 am
Location: Taiwan

Weaken - drug patent issue

by Steppanyaki » Wed May 06, 2009 5:59 am
In countries in which new life-sustaining drugs cannot be patented, such drugs are sold at widely affordable prices; those same drugs, where patented, command premium prices because the patents shield patent-holding manufacturers from competitors. These facts show that future access to new life-sustaining drugs can be improved if the practice of granting patents on newly developed life-sustaining drugs were to be abolished everywhere.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

(A) In countries in which life-sustaining drugs cannot be patented, their manufacture is nevertheless a profitable enterprise.
(B) Countries that do not currently grant patents on life-sustaining drugs are, for the most part, countries with large populations.
(C) In some countries specific processes for the manufacture of pharmaceutical drugs can be patented even in cases in which the drugs themselves cannot be patented.
(D) Pharmaceutical companies can afford the research that goes into the development of new drugs only if patents allow them to earn high profits.
(E) Countries that grant patents on life-sustaining drugs almost always ban their importation from countries that do not grant such patents.
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 431
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 9:32 am
Thanked: 16 times
Followed by:1 members

Re: Weaken - drug patent issue

by kanha81 » Wed May 06, 2009 6:21 am
Steppanyaki wrote:In countries in which new life-sustaining drugs cannot be patented, such drugs are sold at widely affordable prices; those same drugs, where patented, command premium prices because the patents shield patent-holding manufacturers from competitors. These facts show that future access to new life-sustaining drugs can be improved if the practice of granting patents on newly developed life-sustaining drugs were to be abolished everywhere.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

(A) In countries in which life-sustaining drugs cannot be patented, their manufacture is nevertheless a profitable enterprise.
(B) Countries that do not currently grant patents on life-sustaining drugs are, for the most part, countries with large populations.
(C) In some countries specific processes for the manufacture of pharmaceutical drugs can be patented even in cases in which the drugs themselves cannot be patented.
(D) Pharmaceutical companies can afford the research that goes into the development of new drugs only if patents allow them to earn high profits.
(E) Countries that grant patents on life-sustaining drugs almost always ban their importation from countries that do not grant such patents.
IMO [spoiler][D][/spoiler]

If drugs will not be patented in future, then drug manufactures will not earn any profits. This will result in not manufacturing any drugs and hence life sustaining drugs will not be developed.

[A]- opposite to what is implied in the stimulus.
- populations not discussed in the stimuli
[C]- the conclusion talks about "everywhere" aolishment of drug patent and this talks about some countries + this talks about processes being patented and not drugs, which is Irrelevant
[E]- "almost always" not does not affect the argument in any way.
Want to Beat GMAT.
Always do what you're afraid to do. Whoooop GMAT

User avatar
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 5:57 am
Location: Taiwan

by Steppanyaki » Wed May 06, 2009 8:00 am
[spoiler]You're right. OA is D[/spoiler]

I had trouble with this one. While I didn't doubt that D was a viable answer, I had some trouble eliminating C. I thought the focus of this problem was whether everyone would have "future access to new life-sustaining drugs." And I interpreted C to mean that if some manufacturers were able to patent the specific processes for the manufacture of their drugs, competitors ultimately wouldn't be able to to duplicate drugs regardless of whether the drugs are patented per se. And this would mean that competition is still down, premiums are still up, and so people's access to life-sustaining drugs remains the same. Doesn't this weaken the argument?

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 100
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2014 11:00 am

by samanthaJ79 » Sun May 15, 2016 6:08 am
I would go for D as well.