prep一题~

nina_nn

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，怎么理解的呢？ e为什么不对?

julianfl

文章结论说要废除the practice of granting patents

D说不行，因为patents提供new drugs研发的费用。

E说禁止药物的进口，无关选项。：）

nina_nn

明白了~谢谢