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

Redeem

The pharmaceutical industry

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 88
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 1:20 am
Thanked: 1 times

The pharmaceutical industry

by Onell » Sun Dec 05, 2010 10:52 pm
The pharmaceutical industry argues that because new drugs will not be developed unless heavy development costs can be recouped in later sales, the current 20 years of protection provided by patents should be extended in the case of newly developed drugs. However, in other industries new-product development continues despite high development costs, a fact that indicates that the extension is unnecessary.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the pharmaceutical industry's argument against the challenge made above?

(A) No industries other than the pharmaceutical industry have asked for an extension of the 20-year limit on patent protection.
(B) Clinical trials of new drugs, which occur after the patent is granted and before the new drug can be marketed, often now take as long as 10 years to complete.
(C) There are several industries in which the ratio of research and development costs to revenues is higher than it is in the pharmaceutical industry.
(D) An existing patent for a drug does not legally prevent pharmaceutical companies from bringing to market alternative drugs, provided they are sufficiently dissimilar to the patented drug.
(E) Much recent industrial innovation has occurred in products---for example, in the computer and electronics industries---for which patent protection is often very ineffective.

Should not the valid answer attack both the side of the argument? According to Powerscore
the correct answer will actively resolve the paradox, that is, it will allow both sides to be factually correct and it will either explain how the situation came into being or add a piece of information that shows how the two ideas or occurrences can coexist.

...With option B are we not ignoring the possibility that other industry can infact take more than 10 years before the product is marketed? Am I missing sth..

Thanks
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
User avatar
Community Manager
Posts: 991
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 6:19 am
Location: Bangalore, India
Thanked: 146 times
Followed by:24 members

by shovan85 » Sun Dec 05, 2010 11:21 pm
Onell wrote: The pharmaceutical industry argues that because new drugs will not be developed unless heavy development costs can be recouped in later sales, the current 20 years of protection provided by patents should be extended in the case of newly developed drugs. However, in other industries new-product development continues despite high development costs, a fact that indicates that the extension is unnecessary.

(A) No industries other than the pharmaceutical industry have asked for an extension of the 20-year limit on patent protection.
(B) Clinical trials of new drugs, which occur after the patent is granted and before the new drug can be marketed, often now take as long as 10 years to complete.
(C) There are several industries in which the ratio of research and development costs to revenues is higher than it is in the pharmaceutical industry.
(D) An existing patent for a drug does not legally prevent pharmaceutical companies from bringing to market alternative drugs, provided they are sufficiently dissimilar to the patented drug.
(E) Much recent industrial innovation has occurred in products---for example, in the computer and electronics industries---for which patent protection is often very ineffective.
The current protection year is 20 years. But why the pharmaceutical industry wants extension? This could be because though they have been given protection for 20 years they are effectively getting less than that 20 years.

Option B: we know for sure is that the 20-year patent term is effectively 10 years long (20-10), because the companies can't make any profits off their products during clinical trial period.

alternatively we can say that the patent period is effectively half as long as it's supposed to be, clearly strengthening the pharmaceutical industry's argument for an extension of the patent period.
..With option B are we not ignoring the possibility that other industry can infact take more than 10 years before the product is marketed? Am I missing sth..
It may or may not be possible. If other industry take more or less than 10 years to market how does it affect our Argument? We are concerned here to strengthen the Pharmaceutical Industry's Argument. B clearly gives a support to the Argument saying Extension is necessary.
If the problem is Easy Respect it, if the problem is tough Attack it
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 88
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 1:20 am
Thanked: 1 times

by Onell » Sun Dec 05, 2010 11:37 pm
shovan85 wrote:
Onell wrote: The pharmaceutical industry argues that because new drugs will not be developed unless heavy development costs can be recouped in later sales, the current 20 years of protection provided by patents should be extended in the case of newly developed drugs. However, in other industries new-product development continues despite high development costs, a fact that indicates that the extension is unnecessary.

(A) No industries other than the pharmaceutical industry have asked for an extension of the 20-year limit on patent protection.
(B) Clinical trials of new drugs, which occur after the patent is granted and before the new drug can be marketed, often now take as long as 10 years to complete.
(C) There are several industries in which the ratio of research and development costs to revenues is higher than it is in the pharmaceutical industry.
(D) An existing patent for a drug does not legally prevent pharmaceutical companies from bringing to market alternative drugs, provided they are sufficiently dissimilar to the patented drug.
(E) Much recent industrial innovation has occurred in products---for example, in the computer and electronics industries---for which patent protection is often very ineffective.
The current protection year is 20 years. But why the pharmaceutical industry wants extension? This could be because though they have been given protection for 20 years they are effectively getting less than that 20 years.

Option B: we know for sure is that the 20-year patent term is effectively 10 years long (20-10), because the companies can't make any profits off their products during clinical trial period.

alternatively we can say that the patent period is effectively half as long as it's supposed to be, clearly strengthening the pharmaceutical industry's argument for an extension of the patent period.

Let me know if you have any further doubts.
The argument has concluded that the extension is unnecessary using a false analogy wrt other industries.... Therefore if we wish to strengthen the argument using option B should n't it say that the trials period even more for other industries...and moreover I think that the argument can logically conclude extension is unnecessary only if trial period for other industry is equal or greater than the trial period for pharma.. am i missing sth..
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 132
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 2:49 am
Thanked: 5 times

by RadiumBall » Mon Dec 06, 2010 12:02 am
First of all this is not a paradox, it is just that the pharmaceutical industry have asked for a 20-year patent so that a drug manufacturing company can make up can make up costs it has invested on inventing the drug. Clearly only B here strengthens the argument.
Top
User avatar
Community Manager
Posts: 991
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 6:19 am
Location: Bangalore, India
Thanked: 146 times
Followed by:24 members

by shovan85 » Mon Dec 06, 2010 12:45 am
I agree with Radiumball. This is not a paradox Question.
Onell wrote: The argument has concluded that the extension is unnecessary using a false analogy wrt other industries.... Therefore if we wish to strengthen the argument using option B should n't it say that the trials period even more for other industries...and moreover I think that the argument can logically conclude extension is unnecessary only if trial period for other industry is equal or greater than the trial period for pharma.. am i missing sth..
Hmm!! Let us see the Passage.
The pharmaceutical industry argues that because new drugs will not be developed unless heavy development costs can be recouped in later sales, the current 20 years of protection provided by patents should be extended in the case of newly developed drugs. However, in other industries new-product development continues despite high development costs, a fact that indicates that the extension is unnecessary.
The Red Highlighted parts are the Argument of the pharmaceutical industry.
The Green is the Argument of the Passage.

Now let us have a look at the Question Stem. It asks us to Strengthen the Pharampheutical's Argument not the Passage's.
Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the pharmaceutical industry's argument against the challenge made above?


That's why we are not bpthered about other Industry. We are concerned here to strengthen the Pharmaceutical Industry's Argument. B clearly gives a support to the Argument saying Extension is necessary.
If the problem is Easy Respect it, if the problem is tough Attack it
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 15539
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: New York, NY
Thanked: 13060 times
Followed by:1906 members
GMAT Score:790

by GMATGuruNY » Mon Dec 06, 2010 3:42 am
Onell wrote:The pharmaceutical industry argues that because new drugs will not be developed unless heavy development costs can be recouped in later sales, the current 20 years of protection provided by patents should be extended in the case of newly developed drugs. However, in other industries new-product development continues despite high development costs, a fact that indicates that the extension is unnecessary.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the pharmaceutical industry's argument against the challenge made above?

(A) No industries other than the pharmaceutical industry have asked for an extension of the 20-year limit on patent protection.
(B) Clinical trials of new drugs, which occur after the patent is granted and before the new drug can be marketed, often now take as long as 10 years to complete.
(C) There are several industries in which the ratio of research and development costs to revenues is higher than it is in the pharmaceutical industry.
(D) An existing patent for a drug does not legally prevent pharmaceutical companies from bringing to market alternative drugs, provided they are sufficiently dissimilar to the patented drug.
(E) Much recent industrial innovation has occurred in products---for example, in the computer and electronics industries---for which patent protection is often very ineffective.

Should not the valid answer attack both the side of the argument? According to Powerscore
the correct answer will actively resolve the paradox, that is, it will allow both sides to be factually correct and it will either explain how the situation came into being or add a piece of information that shows how the two ideas or occurrences can coexist.

...With option B are we not ignoring the possibility that other industry can infact take more than 10 years before the product is marketed? Am I missing sth..

Thanks
I received a PM asking me to comment.

The opponents of the pharmaceutical industry are making an analogy. The assumption in an analogy is that X is similar to Y. In this case, X = pharmaceutical industry and Y = other industries. The opponents assume that what is true for other industries must also be true for the pharmaceutical industry. The correct answer will attack this assumption: it will show that the pharmaceutical industry is special in some way and cannot be compared to other industries.

Only answer B shows why the pharmaceutical industry cannot be compared to other industries: since clinical trials can take up to 10 year to complete, the pharmaceutical industry needs a longer extension in order to recoup its costs.

The correct answer is B.
Private tutor exclusively for the GMAT and GRE, with over 20 years of experience.
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.

As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.

For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 33
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 8:49 am

by achieve_dream » Wed Jan 04, 2012 5:54 pm
Hi GMATGuruNY,

Can you explain why D is worng?

-achieve_dream

GMATGuruNY wrote:
Onell wrote:The pharmaceutical industry argues that because new drugs will not be developed unless heavy development costs can be recouped in later sales, the current 20 years of protection provided by patents should be extended in the case of newly developed drugs. However, in other industries new-product development continues despite high development costs, a fact that indicates that the extension is unnecessary.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the pharmaceutical industry's argument against the challenge made above?

(A) No industries other than the pharmaceutical industry have asked for an extension of the 20-year limit on patent protection.
(B) Clinical trials of new drugs, which occur after the patent is granted and before the new drug can be marketed, often now take as long as 10 years to complete.
(C) There are several industries in which the ratio of research and development costs to revenues is higher than it is in the pharmaceutical industry.
(D) An existing patent for a drug does not legally prevent pharmaceutical companies from bringing to market alternative drugs, provided they are sufficiently dissimilar to the patented drug.
(E) Much recent industrial innovation has occurred in products---for example, in the computer and electronics industries---for which patent protection is often very ineffective.

Should not the valid answer attack both the side of the argument? According to Powerscore
the correct answer will actively resolve the paradox, that is, it will allow both sides to be factually correct and it will either explain how the situation came into being or add a piece of information that shows how the two ideas or occurrences can coexist.

...With option B are we not ignoring the possibility that other industry can infact take more than 10 years before the product is marketed? Am I missing sth..

Thanks
I received a PM asking me to comment.

The opponents of the pharmaceutical industry are making an analogy. The assumption in an analogy is that X is similar to Y. In this case, X = pharmaceutical industry and Y = other industries. The opponents assume that what is true for other industries must also be true for the pharmaceutical industry. The correct answer will attack this assumption: it will show that the pharmaceutical industry is special in some way and cannot be compared to other industries.

Only answer B shows why the pharmaceutical industry cannot be compared to other industries: since clinical trials can take up to 10 year to complete, the pharmaceutical industry needs a longer extension in order to recoup its costs.

The correct answer is B.
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 15539
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: New York, NY
Thanked: 13060 times
Followed by:1906 members
GMAT Score:790

by GMATGuruNY » Wed Jan 04, 2012 7:26 pm
achieve_dream wrote:Hi GMATGuruNY,

Can you explain why D is worng?

-achieve_dream
GMATGuruNY wrote:The pharmaceutical industry argues that because new drugs will not be developed unless heavy development costs can be recouped in later sales, the current 20 years of protection provided by patents should be extended in the case of newly developed drugs. However, in other industries new-product development continues despite high development costs, a fact that indicates that the extension is unnecessary.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the pharmaceutical industry's argument against the challenge made above?

(D) An existing patent for a drug does not legally prevent pharmaceutical companies from bringing to market alternative drugs, provided they are sufficiently dissimilar to the patented drug.
The drug companies contend that, without the patent extension, they will be unable recoup their development costs. The correct answer must support this position. By implying that these development costs might be recouped through the sale of alternative drugs, answer choice D WEAKENS the position of the drug companies.
Private tutor exclusively for the GMAT and GRE, with over 20 years of experience.
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.

As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.

For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 58
Joined: Mon May 21, 2012 9:57 pm
Thanked: 1 times

by vinodsundaram » Wed Jul 11, 2012 3:05 am
pharma companies : extension necessary recoup cost thru sales
Other companies : unnecessary

(A) No industries other than the pharmaceutical industry have asked for an extension of the 20-year limit on patent protection. (Not relevant)
(B) Clinical trials of new drugs, which occur after the patent is granted and before the new drug can be marketed, often now take as long as 10 years to complete. (After 10 yrs of clinical trials, the sale of drug starts. Hence extension in time to recoup costs)
(C) There are several industries in which the ratio of research and development costs to revenues is higher than it is in the pharmaceutical industry. (Weaken pharma companies stand. Even with High R/D costs, the other companies are able to survive)
(D) An existing patent for a drug does not legally prevent pharmaceutical companies from bringing to market alternative drugs, provided they are sufficiently dissimilar to the patented drug. ( new drug and old drug. But doesn't talk anything about costs. OOS)
(E) Much recent industrial innovation has occurred in products---for example, in the computer and electronics industries---for which patent protection is often very ineffective. (Irrelevant.OOS)
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1