BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

CR5

Expert replies
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by vivek.kapoor83 » Wed Oct 01, 2008 3:31 am
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
Join the discussion

by EricLien9122 » Wed Oct 01, 2008 4:37 am
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
Join the discussion

by raajan_p » Wed Oct 01, 2008 1:12 pm
I am confused between C and E

Please provide the OA with detailed explanation...

Thanks!
Join the discussion

by rdxb » Wed Oct 01, 2008 1:25 pm
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 :wink: j/k

IMO D
Join the discussion

by stubbornp » Wed Oct 01, 2008 6:16 pm
OA D
Join the discussion

by peter.p.81 » Wed May 11, 2016 2:42 am
Answer D seems to be logical one out of other answer choices
Join the discussion