本贴相关题目 GMATPrep-2007E1-CR-44 (HNHN)

00:00:00

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?

AIn countries in which life-sustaining drugs cannot be patented, their manufacture is nevertheless a profitable enterprise.
BCountries that do not currently grant patents on life-sustaining drugs are, for the most part, countries with large populations.
CIn some countries specific processes for the manufacture of pharmaceutical drugs can be patented even in cases in which the drugs themselves cannot be patented.
DPharmaceutical companies can afford the research that goes into the development of new drugs only if patents allow them to earn high profits.
ECountries that grant patents on life-sustaining drugs almost always ban their importation from countries that do not grant such patents.

正确答案: D

[求助]A CR Q asked for explanation!!!

[复制链接]

Bensontuo

楼主

发表于 2019-8-21 18:42:12 | 显示全部楼层

fernandochang 发表于 2003-4-7 04:27
Could somebody tell me why? THANKS~7.In countries in which new life-sustaining drugs cannot be paten ...

Spot the question type: Weaken

Core of the argument

If no patent were to be abolished everywhere, future access to new life sustaining drugs can be improved.

Premises: The price of non patent drug is lower than the price of patent drugs.

A. Seems supportable, but it is actually not relevant.

B. Non relevant

C. Non relevant

D. Well, without the patents, drugs can't be developed. Perfectly weaken the argument

E. It is too broad