Bunuel wrote:
A director of the Rexx Pharmaceutical Company argued that the development costs for new vaccines that the health department has requested should be subsidized by the government, since the marketing of vaccines promised to be less profitable than the marketing of any other pharmaceutical product. In support of this claim the director argued that sales of vaccines are likely to be lower since each vaccine is administered to a patient only once, whereas medicines that combat diseases and chronic illnesses are administered many times to each patient.
Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the support offered by the company director for the claim concerning the marketing of vaccines?
(A) Vaccines are administered to many more people than are most other pharmaceutical products.
(B) Many of the diseases that vaccines are designed to prevent can be successfully treated by medicines.
(C) Pharmaceutical companies occasionally market products that are neither medicines nor vaccines.
(D) Pharmaceutical companies other than the Rexx Pharmaceutical Company produce vaccines.
(E) The cost of administering a vaccine is rarely borne by the pharmaceutical company that manufactures that vaccine.
Manufacturer - Subsidise the cost of development of vaccines.
Why? Because people need only one dose of the vaccine. Other medications normally have courses in which multiple doses are required.
So it will be less profitable than other medications.
How can we weaken it? Note that the argument compares the profit of vaccines to the profit of other medications. It claims that profit in vaccines is lower and hence asks for a subsidy. To weaken it, we need to show that profit in vaccines may not be lower than profit in other medications.
(A) Vaccines are administered to many more people than are most other pharmaceutical products.
Vaccines are preventive so they will be given to everyone. Medications are given to only those who develop the disease. So vaccines will be quite profitable too. The number of doses sold of the vaccine may be similar to the number of doses sold of any other medication. So profit may not be lower.
Hence, this does weaken the argument.
(B) Many of the diseases that vaccines are designed to prevent can be successfully treated by medicines.
Irrelevant. The govt wants vaccines.
(C) Pharmaceutical companies occasionally market products that are neither medicines nor vaccines.
Irrelevant. We are comparing vaccines with other medications only.
(D) Pharmaceutical companies other than the Rexx Pharmaceutical Company produce vaccines.
It doesn't matter. As per Rexx, the profit on vaccines would be lower for everyone. So everyone would like a subsidised cost of development.
(E) The cost of administering a vaccine is rarely borne by the pharmaceutical company that manufactures that vaccine.
Cost of administering is not relevant in case of other medications too since usually patients take the medicines on their own. Even in cases where there is a cost of administering medication (say through an injection by a nurse), it is not borne by the manufacturer. The manufacturer only makes the vaccines and medications. So this point does not give a distinction between costs related to vaccine and costs related to other medications.
It does not show that profits from vaccines may not be lower than profits from other medications for manufacturers.
Answer (A)
_________________
Karishma Bansal - ANA PREP
*SUPER SUNDAYS!* - FREE Access to ALL Resources EVERY Sunday
REGISTER at ANA PREP
(Includes access to Study Modules, Concept Videos, Practice Questions and LIVE Classes)
YouTube Channel
youtube.com/karishma.anaprep