Critical Reasoning

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?

Key to getting the right answers to CR questions is using effective processes. So more important than understanding the explanation to any particular question is seeing how to analyze the argument and the answer choices in order to get to the right answer.

In this case, because we are considering how to weaken the conclusion, we better know what the conclusion actually is. The conclusion of this argument is that since in countries where patents are not granted drugs sell at prices more affordable than those seen in countries where patents are granted, access to drugs would be improved if the granting of patents were abolished. I immediately wonder if actually what would happen if granting patents were abolished is that the manufacture of drugs would become less profitable and so actually fewer drugs would be available if the granting of patents were abolished, but without being tied to that line of thinking, let's see what the answer choices say.

A) In countries in which life-sustaining drugs cannot be patented, their manufacture is nevertheless a profitable enterprise.

Hmm. This does not weaken the argument. If anything it strengthens it. If without patents making drugs is still profitable, then maybe abolishing the granting of patents would not cause the flow of drugs to dry up.

b) Countries that do not currently grant patents on life-sustaining drugs are, for the most part, countries with large populations.

This seems totally irrelevant. I am not going to rule out entirely that this could be the answer, because sometimes the weirdest answer turns out to be the right one, but I don't see any way this weakens the argument.

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.

This might weaken the argument, because the if processes can be patented, then maybe the prices of drugs can somehow be kept high. So the availability might not be increased by abolishing the granting of patents. Keeping this one for now.

D) Pharmaceutical companies can afford the research that go into the development of new drugs only if patents allow them to earn high profits.

Ok. This question turned out to be pretty easy. I am pretty sure this is the answer. If they can't make profits, the companies are not going to make new drugs. So actually abolishing the granting of patents will tend to shut down the flow of new drugs and thus drastically reduce availability. Still going to check answer E, but I am all but certain E can't be better than this one.

E) Countries that grant patents on life-sustaining drugs almost always ban their importation from countries that do not grant such patents.

This does not weaken the argument. If anything it strengthens it in that maybe abolishing the granting of patents would somehow result in greater international trade in drugs.

So the correct answer is D.

Hi Experts ,

Can someone please explain more, how option D weakens the argument?

I still don't understand.

Many thanks in advance.

Kavin

Needgmat wrote:Hi Experts ,

Can someone please explain more, how option D weakens the argument?

I still don't understand.

Many thanks in advance.

Kavin

Premise: In countries in which new-life sustaining drugs cannot be patented, such drugs are sold at widely affordable prices;

Premise: those same drugs, where patented, command premium prices because the patents shield patent-holding manufacturers from competitors.

Conclusion: 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.

So the idea is that since patents seem to cause drugs to be sold at premium prices, making them less affordable and therefore in a way less accessible than they are in countries in which drugs cannot be patented, if granting patents were ended, NEW DRUGS would not be sold at premium prices and therefore would be effectively MORE ACCESSIBLE.

(D) Pharmaceutical companies can afford the research that goes into the development of new drugs only if patents allow them to earn high profits.

In other words, without patents there will be no high profits, and without high profits there will be no research, which research is a necessary part of the process of developing new drugs.

So without patents there will be no new drugs.

So if D is true, then it destroys the argument, as abolishing the granting of patents will not improve access to new drugs, as concluded, but rather end access to new drugs, as there will be no new drugs.

Premise: In countries in which new-life sustaining drugs cannot be patented, such drugs are sold at widely affordable prices;

Premise: those same drugs, where patented, command premium prices because the patents shield patent-holding manufacturers from competitors.

Conclusion: 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.

So the idea is that since patents seem to cause drugs to be sold at premium prices, making them less affordable and therefore in a way less accessible than they are in countries in which drugs cannot be patented, if granting patents were ended, NEW DRUGS would not be sold at premium prices and therefore would be effectively MORE ACCESSIBLE.

(D) Pharmaceutical companies can afford the research that goes into the development of new drugs only if patents allow them to earn high profits.

In other words, without patents there will be no high profits, and without high profits there will be no research, which research is a necessary part of the process of developing new drugs.

So without patents there will be no new drugs.

So if D is true, then it destroys the argument, as abolishing the granting of patents will not improve access to new drugs, as concluded, but rather end access to new drugs, as there will be no new drugs.

Hi Marty ,

Thanks for your explanation. All clear now.

Thanks,

Kavin