IMO C because Even if patent on the drug is abolished, its process can be patented, stoping other companies to produce it and manufc. can earn higher profits by high prices. So, situatuion will be as it is....
OA Pls
CR5
This topic has expert replies
Source: Beat The GMAT — Critical Reasoning |
-
vivek.kapoor83
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 833
- Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 1:56 am
- Thanked: 13 times
-
EricLien9122
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 106
- Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 10:50 am
- Thanked: 3 times
E:
When drugs are not patent, price is afford.
When drugs are patent, price is high.
C:
Future access to new drugs can be improved, if abolish patents.
How to weaken the arguments?
We need something that says "we need patent for future new drugs"
IMO: D
When drugs are not patent, price is afford.
When drugs are patent, price is high.
C:
Future access to new drugs can be improved, if abolish patents.
How to weaken the arguments?
We need something that says "we need patent for future new drugs"
IMO: D
I guess for weaken the argument, we should take the answer choices as "true", keeping that in mind, if Answer choice "D" is true, then there wouldnt be any other way to produce new LS drugs, and so access to them(LSD) would invariably be low.
P.S: Now thats weakening right? Coz how wud the drug market sustain itself wihtout LSD
j/k
IMO D
P.S: Now thats weakening right? Coz how wud the drug market sustain itself wihtout LSD
j/kIMO D
-
peter.p.81
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 300
- Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2014 7:58 am
