44. (33799-!-item-!-188;#058&007092)
In countries in which newlife-sustaining drugs cannot be patented, such drugs are sold at widelyaffordable prices; those same drugs, where patented, command premium pricesbecause the patents shield patent-holding manufacturers from competitors. These facts show that future access to newlife-sustaining drugs can be improved if the practice of granting patents onnewly developed life-sustaining drugs were to be abolished everywhere.
Which of the following, if true,most seriously weakens the argument?
(A) In countries in whichlife-sustaining drugs cannot be patented, their manufacture is nevertheless aprofitable enterprise.
(B) Countries that do not currentlygrant patents on life-sustaining drugs are, for the most part, countries withlarge populations.
(C) In some countries specificprocesses for the manufacture of pharmaceutical drugs can be patented even incases in which the drugs themselves cannot be patented.
(D) Pharmaceutical companies canafford the research that goes into the development of new drugs only if patentsallow them to earn high profits.
(E) Countries that grant patents onlife-sustaining drugs almost always ban their importation from countries thatdo not grant such patents.
这题里面only if是then的话，是不是D就是: If pharmaceutical companies can afford the research that goes into the development of new drugs, then parents allow them to earn high profits. ？我怎么觉得意思反了呢...还是我没有正确理解你说的if...then的意思...><
还有3楼指出来的例子，我也和他有一样的看法诶...
唉，被CR搞的好头大啊...现在手上的题目我感觉大多数都能找出答案来，就怕上了考场不行啊，已经要3战了...
| 
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2011-7-23 18:04:20
楼主
