大牛看过来，逻辑Lawyer这道题的解释是不是错了？

yongqiang2742

The pharmaceutical industry argues that because new drugs will not be developed unless heavy development costs can be recouped in later sales, the current 20 years of protection provided by patents should be extended in the case of newly developed drugs.
However, in other industries new-product development continues despite high development costs, a fact that indicates that the extension is unnecessary.
Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the pharmaceutical industry’s argument against the challenge made above?
(A) No industries other than the pharmaceutical industry have asked for an extension of the 20-year limit on patent protection.
(B) Clinical trials of new drugs, which occur after the patent is granted and before the new drug can be marketed, often now take as long as 10 years to complete.
(C) There are several industries in which the ratio of research and development costs to revenues is higher than it is in the pharmaceutical industry.
(D) An existing patent for a drug does not legally prevent pharmaceutical companies from
bringing to market alternative drugs, provided they are sufficiently dissimilar to the patented drug.
(E) Much recent industrial innovation has occurred in products—for example, in the computer and electronics industries—for which patent protection is often very ineffective.
这道题制药行业提出要求延长专利保护期限，题干中提出一些行业虽然开发新产品虽然要花费很高但还是会进行新产品开发，所以说明延长专利期限是不必要的。
本题问下列哪个选项最能支持制药行业的argument？

答案选B，我也以为应该选B，但lawyer给出的解释是“结合因果，证明不需要20年的限制”，但我觉得B选项不正是证明了需要延长专利期限吗？从而支持了制药行业的argument？ 因为在制药行业中即便获取专利后还需要十年的时间进行测试，然后才能在市场上销售，所以这正说明需要延长专利期限。我怎么觉得lawyer给的解释不对啊？

求高手解答疑惑。

2643301345

我觉得B 不是答案吧， 两个行业都没有比较。

杯uu

求问哪里可以找到lawyer的逻辑题解释？？他是开来一个帖子吗？