ChaseDream
搜索
返回列表 发新帖
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?

正确答案: D

更多相关帖子

524

帖子

15

好友

4712

积分

ChaseDream

注册时间
2003-03-17
精华
8
解析
查看: 3976|回复: 3
打印 上一主题 下一主题

[求助]A CR Q asked for explanation!!!

[复制链接]
楼主
发表于 2003-4-7 04:27:00 | 只看该作者

[求助]A CR Q asked for explanation!!!

Could somebody tell me why? THANKS~


7.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 competitiors. 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 drug are, for the most part, countries with large populations.
(C)In some countries specific processes for the manufacture of pharmaceutical drug 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.
(A
沙发
发表于 2003-4-7 11:48:00 | 只看该作者
我选D,提干说没有专利保护的好处,卖价合理,新药获得有保证,要求削弱,D说只有在专利保护下,制药公司才能赚足够的钱承受新药的研发。言外之意,有专利保护才好。
A,E加强,B,C无关。
板凳
发表于 2003-4-7 21:37:00 | 只看该作者
同意,一旦D成立,则新药的研制有问题,后面结论的大家都有药的想法就不成了。
地板
发表于 2019-8-21 18:42:12 | 只看该作者
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
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

Mark一下! 看一下! 顶楼主! 感谢分享! 快速回复:

手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2024-12-1 15:26
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2023 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部