请问og-178

jones79

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. D

(E) Countries that grant patents on life-sustaining drugs almost always ban their importation from countries that do not grant such patents.

If without patents pharmaceutical companies could not afford to develop new drugs, then abolishing patents would mean that people would have reduced access to new life-sustaining drugs, thereby weakening the argument presented. Therefore, choice D is the correct answer.

请问答案d是如何削弱的?本题是属于"要反对A是B的原因,就说B是A的原因"的模式,有是怎么一回事.

想了半天没想明白,很难开窍,谢谢nn帮忙解答

BiteGmat

题干：为了新药的开发而取消专利

D项：只有专利才能保证新药的开发

jones79

文章结论如下:

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.

怎么没看出来是"为了新药的开发而取消专利",我看是如果取消专利,就有利于新药的开发

jones79

看了半天还是没弄明白,各位大侠帮忙看看,到底问题中的A,B分别是取消专利和开发新药对么??

华籍美人

我觉得题干是这样：一些国家没有对新药品加以专利保护，于是新药品的价格就低，人们就容易获得新药；

另一些国家搞了专利保护，结果由于没有竞争，新药品的价格就高，人们很难获得新药

由此得出结论，要使人们容易获得新药品就要取消专利

D：由于没有专利保护企业利润，企业不愿开发新药品。

D是削弱，说明原文的取消专利并没有起到设想其作用，反而引起另外一种相反作用，同样使人们难以获得新药品

cccccc0

up

沧海剑客

终于明白178的C了：对于同一个既有process又有drug patents的药来说，去除了drug的patents的专利，还是比之前两个patents要好啊，这就是OG说的“does not mean no benefit"。

换句话说，要同一个药对比，不能对比两个专利的药和一个专利的药。