请教prep44

dz327fam

    

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.

请教各位NN这道题为什么选D不选A呢？ 谢谢！

dingxiang

请关注结论： 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.

是个条件型的结论。

focus在于讨论病人对药的 future  access ， 而非focus在厂家是否获利

而D通过另外一个角度，说厂家如果不通过专利赚钱，那么就没有经费研发， 病人也就没有对药的 access 了。

注意结论里面说的是 future access， 而D也就是通过 长远的情况来削弱结论。

Denise1989

那请问E为什么不对呢