prep----44

44.   (33799-!-item-!-188;#058&007092)

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.

答案是D  我选C？？？？？？？？

选D没错，C是完全无关选项，更何况是C里还有个some，看到some你就可以先别看这选项了，这不是诉诸大众嘛，典型的错误

先来简化一下题目conclusion: new drug is easier to produce if baned the patent. (禁止专利权使新药更容易层出不穷)

简化下D：No patents, no new drug. (如果不是有专利权，那些公司就没法赚那么多钱来研发新药了）

D明显是削弱项