请教OG178 看过讨论还是没弄清楚

flyingheart_ss

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

答案是D

我选的C  我是这样想的： specific processes can be patented>fewer companies have the righr to produdce it>premium for the anthorized companies>higher price>not widely affordable

所以即使药物上的专利被取消了 也不足以使这种药物更容易取得  weaken

当然D是对的我没有疑问。

先谢过！

snowjing

C应该是无关项,因为削弱就是削弱结论. 而结论是取消专利有利于获得新药.

C: 在一些国家,制药程序是受专利保护的,甚至一些药品本身并没有专利保护.

从C可以得出制药程序所针对的大多数药都是受专利保护的.所以根本和结论无关.

楼主似乎犯了"进一步推理"的大忌了.

一家之言,请讨论!

flyingheart_ss

还是有点茫然 容我在想想 有结论了在来  谢了

momoyu

What's the difference between A and D?

A: not profitable

D: no high profit to support the R&D

A is wrong because even if an enterprise is no longer profitable, it may still go on developing new drugs. Although it weakens but not as strong D and needs additional information to confirm that it is not profitable enough to develop new drugs. Am I right?

[此贴子已经被作者于2005-9-25 11:28:55编辑过]

snowjing

momoyu

我觉得你的理解有点偏差.

文章推理: "无专利保护的药卖得便宜"/"有专利保护的药卖得贵"-->取消专利容易获得新药

1.选项A: 在一些国家,life-sustaining drugs没有专利保护, 虽然这样但是, 这些国家的制药工厂还是赚钱的.

理解这个选项必须用到文章的前提: 没有专利保护的药卖得便宜.(In countries in which new life-sustaining drugs cannot be patented, such drugs are sold at widely affordable prices)

制药厂获不获利与结论无关,该选项为无关项.

2.选项D: 选项D的逻辑关系是: develop new drugs-->patent, 从而该命题的逆否命题为: abolish patents-->reduce access to new drugs, 即取消专利反而更不容易获得新药, 与结论完全相反.

3.本题不存在it is profitable enough to develop new drugs or not. 这不是本题的focus.

个人理解,大家讨论.

fishlibai

以下是引用snowjing在2005/9/24 10:39:00的发言：

C应该是无关项,因为削弱就是削弱结论. 而结论是取消专利有利于获得新药.

C: 在一些国家,制药程序是受专利保护的,甚至一些药品本身并没有专利保护.

从C可以得出制药程序所针对的大多数药都是受专利保护的.所以根本和结论无关.

楼主似乎犯了"进一步推理"的大忌了.

一家之言,请讨论!

分析的很好, 我也要注意自己不能进一步推理