Critical Reasoning

178. 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.


can you please explain your analysis on the above argument

Premise
Assumption
Conclusion
Weaken - Why is it D

+1 for D.

According to the argument,

Preventing patents => Improved Future Access to NEW drugs

D attacks the reasoning by indicating that new drugs will not be developed at all if patents are abolished.

Crick

conclusion
Abolish patents in order to improve access to new drugs

Only in D does it suggest that Pharmaceutical companies require patents to generate profits to be able to develop these drugs

PREMISE: " 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. "

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.


"
ASSUMPTION : "If patent is abolished companies will not be aaffected / "

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

This says the conclusion will backfire.

New drugs available only if patents are possible.

No patents no new drugs.

luiscarlos59 wrote:New drugs available only if patents are possible.

No patents no new drugs.

Very concisely put. The argument hinges on IMPROVING ACCESS TO NEW DRUGS. If companies can only afford their research via patents, they won't be able to afford research without patents, and thus there will be no new drugs.