CR5

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

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

I am confused between C and E

Please provide the OA with detailed explanation...

Thanks!

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

OA D

Answer D seems to be logical one out of other answer choices