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. 为什么d对~~谁来帮我解答一下
为什么d对~~谁来帮我解答一下作者: sdcar2010 时间: 2011-5-8 21:09
What D says is that, a necessary condition for a new drug to be developed is that patents can allow drug companies to earn high enough profits to support R&D efforts for new drug development.
Since this is a necessary condition, once the patent protection is revoked, no new drugs will be developed. Thus, D weakens the argument in the stimulus.作者: skyemotion 时间: 2011-5-9 10:16
可以使用排除法。 原文：no patent, low price; patent high price; 如果取消patent，则会增加药品