ChaseDream

标题: PREP 07的一道题 [打印本页]

作者: 纪小公举 时间: 2017-3-17 17:16
标题: PREP 07的一道题
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.

OA是D，我选了C
搜了很多网上的解释，说c讨论了其他专利，是无关的。但是我个人觉得，如果是制药过程有专利，那么消费者看到的药还是有“有专利”和“无专利”之分，那么他们还是会买有专利的，那么有专利的依然会比较贵，能够削弱结论。（我记得OG VERB上一有一个关于奶牛吃了某种食物增产的问题，答案也是C这个方向的）
反而对于D，我觉得，就算不能开发更新的药，但是题目问的是新药，现有的新药不也是新药吗？就算没有更新的药，现有的新药没有专利的分别以后，access不是还是会improve吗？

求大大们解惑...

作者: 纪小公举 时间: 2017-3-17 22:57
顶一下有没有人帮忙解释一下呀

作者: TianNao 时间: 2017-3-17 23:43
lz你的想法很别致啊

你对D的解释太复杂了。题目里说的是future access to new life-sustaining drugs，是new，不是existing。

作者: TianNao 时间: 2017-3-17 23:47
个人感觉你对c的解释也不太对：

搜了很多网上的解释，说c讨论了其他专利，是无关的。但是我个人觉得，如果是制药过程有专利，那么消费者看到的药还是有“有专利”和“无专利”之分，那么他们还是会买有专利的，那么有专利的依然会比较贵，能够削弱结论。（我记得OG VERB上一有一个关于奶牛吃了某种食物增产的问题，答案也是C这个方向的）

C说的是制药过程有专利，暗示这个药价格也会贵，使得access也会受到影响。跟消费者会去选择哪个没有关系。C不能说完全无关吧，但是明显不如D好。

如果暂时还是想不通，就记下题号，过两天再回头来看。

作者: changfengpx 时间: 2017-3-18 00:18
这道题的前提（premise）是： the practice of granting patents on newly developed life-sustaining drugs were to be abolished everywhere
结论（conclusion）是： future access to new life-sustaining drugs can be improved
问题问削弱，就是需要找到一个选项，来支持if abolished, future access to new drug can NOT improve
答案：(D) Pharmaceutical companies can afford the research that goes into the development of new drugs only if patents allow them to earn high profits. （提到了在没有abolished的情况，利润支持研发；那么if abolished的情况下, 没有那么高的profits来支持 research,也就造成future access to new durgs will not improve的结果，跟问题要找的选项完全一致）
(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. （说有些国家在drug not patented的情况下，对一些制药的processes patent了。注意drug 跟process完全两码事。回到问题 if abolished patent of drug，对这些国家根本造成不了影响，因为他们的drug本身就没有patent,更谈不上对 future access to new drug的影响了）

作者: 纪小公举 时间: 2017-3-18 00:37

changfengpx 发表于 2017-3-18 00:18
这道题的前提（premise）是： the practice of granting patents on newly developed life-sustaining drug ...

看懂了！本来就没有patent...忽略了这一点！谢谢楼上！

欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/)