OG-178

178. 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.

原文中are sold at widely affordable prices并没有暗示制造商无法获得high profits，所以对答案不太理解。

I think to command premium price/rate means to get higher prices  than usual ones, thus making high profits。

但是从常规的逻辑来看，premium price绝对不等同于hight profits，两个概念有很大差距的。

D表达了如果没有“patent allow..."，就肯定有"parmaceutical companies can not afford..."。同时D的意思也表达了 没有patent，肯定就没有“patent allow..."这个结果（主语没有了，动作就没有了）。所以D的意思可以推论出没有patent，就肯定有"parmaceutical companies can not affortd..."。

这样就weaken了结论。另外，OG的解释也看看吧。

谢了。OG的解释看过了，没懂才问的。现在想明白了。

再次感谢诸位。

感觉这里D的推论没有patent，就肯定有"parmaceutical companies can not affortd..."。是d的逆否命题吧，题干说的是：取消专利就能得到新药，而d说取消专利就没有了新药

所以A---〉B削弱A----〉B非

不知道这样理解对不对，请nn帮我指正

顶一下