求助一道逻辑题目 烦请各位帮忙看看 谢谢

wjk

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：D
这道题目做的时候就有点晕，没搞清楚前后关系，为什么选D呢？求指点 谢谢

橙色的鱼

原文逻辑是：patent-high price-abolish pantent-more accessible
但是high price并不是影响access的唯一原因，D就指出了只有允许专利的存在公司才会开发这种药物，所以abolish patent反而会减少研发从而make it not accessible