In countries in which new-life sustaining drugs cannot be patented, su

OA is D.

Could someone please elaborate on why C is wrong?

Also, in first sentence, it clearly says that in some countries where drug is not patented, it sells for less.

nitin

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 shieldpatent-holding company 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 arguement?
A) In countries in which life-sustaining drugs cannot be patented, their manufacturer is neverthless 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 go 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.

D for me as argument is weakened if it cosiders the cost of research and high cost, in countries where patent is legal, contribute to the research

why is B not corect can somebody throw a light on this??

Hi,

b) Countries that do not currently grant patents on life-sustaining drugs are, for the most part, countries with large populations

This option only tells that most of the countries which currently do not grant patents have large populations. So what? The option doesn't tell whether people have easy access to the life-saving drugs in this country - which is the essence of the conclusion.

Thanks,
Chiranjeev

It is between C & D for me.

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 go into the development of new drugs only if patents allow them to earn high profits.

"allow them to earn high profits" is the troubling part in D for me. Argument is never about Pharmaceutical companies gaining profits.

If Processes of making drugs can be patented, the whole agruement collapses as it's main theme is cheaper drugs.

Passage says that if we get rid of patents -- then things will be better (profits) for these new drugs.

Do we know that getting rid of patents is necessarily a good thing for these new drugs?

Do there exist cases in which getting rid of patents is actually a bad thing?

Look for answer choice that says either:

1) getting rid of patents = bad thing

OR

2) keep the patents = a good thing

A) -- no patents = good thing not what we are looking for)

b) no patents = something to do with large population -- that's nether good nor bad

c) not relevant
d) if yes patents = high profits / no patents = no profits --> This says both parts of what we are looking for.
e) yes patents = ban important from countries that do not grant patents -- so basically if you have a patent in the US -- all your competitors from non-US countries will be banned from being in the US -- so you get full control in the US. You could view that as a good thing - but how does this relate to profit?

WIth (D) - -we specifically have a mention of the word "profits" -- and because of the word "only" - we are able to imply two statements -- that if yes patent, then yes profits. If no patent, then no profits. So that is we want.

I fundamentally disagree with the answer to this question. Or at the very least, I think it's a bad question. And here's why: the author argues that patents on newly developed life-sustaining drugs should be abolished everywhere to increase future access to new life-sustaining drugs. But based on the information in choice C, even if you don't patent the drugs, companies can still patent the production process, rendering the author's argument moot.

For example, the United States, albuterol has been off patent since the 1970s. Yet you still can't buy the dang thing for less than $80-$100. Why? Because pharma keeps updating new ways of drug delivery and manufacturing quality control making it still impossible to buy generic albuterol (try it, you won't find it). So if someone were to say, yo just abolish all drug patents, that increases access to life-sustaining drugs, a perfectly strong counterargument is, you can abolish all the drug patents you want but prices will still be high because of manufacturing and delivery patents, and so you're not increasing access to anything at the end of the day. And indeed, that is the case.

Guys, face each CR as a "friendly debate" between you and the author, with you the WINNER at the end!

Read the stimulus carefully, abbreviate, rephrase the stimulus mentally - all of that to guarantee that you UNDERSTAND the connections - read the question stem, ONLY THEN go to questions

let the battle begin - - I could almost hear the mellow author's voice

First reading (or listening, if you are imaginative) is cloudy as usual, but I have pen and paper to my advantage, so I take the opportunity to separate the conclusion from the premises and also REPHRASE to eliminate FAT. It is called proposition, can't remember

Unfortunately, we can't keep on talking forever, afterall, Mr. GMAT is impatient, so I must take notes from your "speech" (stimulus). So, for the sake of time efficiency, let me abbreviate it

(Man, I can almost see the gentleman smoking a cigar in front of me hehe)

lsd= life-saving drugs (By the way, I think it was a hidden joke)

P1: Ctries new lsd not pttd = afford price (fact)
P2: Ctries new lsd pttd = premium price (fact)
P3: Shield in Co. w/ ptt (fact)
C: FUTURE access 2 NEW lsd go up if grant practice disappears EVERYWHERE (author's opinion)

(I checked on him, he checked on me. We are sat in opposite sides... I am definitely not scared of him. )

So, a quick check on my notes and another mental rephrasing

- You, sir, are saying
"BECAUSE..."
* Prices GO up and down according to patent in lsd (see, this is a fact! I won't rephrase it mentally with possibility-word such as "can/if" for "go", somehow, it deceives me)
"AND BECAUSE..."
* Co. with Patents receives shield. (I don't have much time now, but to keep me engaged in the premise, I ask myself why Goverments protect co like that... anyway, not important)[/i]

- ...therefore, sir GMAT, you concluded that...
* Access is affected (the core of the conclusion) how? if Patent granting, disappear from everywhere.

"Cool, I see your point, and I respect your opinion, But, seriously?" (rephrase this passage entirely with bad words to make it more real)

It's time for me to be street wisely, assess "my consciousness" looking for the an option that 'let him scratching his head'. In real life you would do that naturally in less than the 2.5 min GMAT debate arena provide you.

So, first things first. I can't dispute facts, unless one is inaccurate. I am sure that Mr. GMAT never brings false facts, he is a smart tough guy. That would be too obvious.

I must debate on something else...

...maybe something hidden/unspoken/implied.
Oh my Gosh, I have to debate on something else, then. I must find something that he didn't say but that put him off balance.

So, let me check my possibilities in my "conciousness" (answer choices)

I remembered that Places where Pharma Co. cannot patent LSD still make profit - Well, I could try to make a link between the patent practice disappears and pure profit, but it seems very hard to me. I will skip this thought

I also know that countries like China, USA, India do not grant patents. But again, how the heck this affect access to drugs regading patents. This thought is useless

Well, I remembered that in some places we can break the rules and patent THE PROCESS(!) and patent DRUGS in General. Oh gosh, if it wasn't by THE PROCESS patent, I could put Mr. Gmat in the corner since it could be a decisive way to grant the access. This one almost got me.

My clock is ticking, the crowd is staring me and I still haven't assessed anything plausible... I won't be desperate, i am sure there is smt out there

My thoughts carry me away to an option like lsd patenting country (if there exists one) ban importation from those that dont patent... only if I strecht it far far away I could see smt like "retaliation," then new access to lsd by vengeance.

I know that development of new drugs, including LSD, can happen with $$$. Well, I know it is against my faith of free market but by guaranteeing monopoly to the Pharma. Co, they will make money, then invest in dvlpment of drugs, then increasing the # of new drugs! Well, the circle closes!

Deal with that, Mr GMAT! Waiting for your counter-argument, since this things last forever.

The passage argues that access to life-sustaining drugs would be improved if patents on them were abolished, based on information about the lower cost of such drugs in countries where there are no patents. We are asked to identify the answer choice that most weakens the argument.

Keeping the following point in mind, proceed to the options,
Here weaken option will just prove that the access to life-sustaining drugs would not be improved if the patents were abolished.

(A) In countries in which life-sustaining drugs cannot be patented, their manufacture is nevertheless a profitable enterprise.
so what? Here, the abolition of patents does not even come into picture because the drugs cannot be patented in such countries. So, its an advantage and it supports the above argument.
Because In countries in which new life-sustaining drugs cannot be patented, such drugs are sold at widely affordable prices; on this reasoning only the conclusion is made about the access to these drugs. Therefore, incorrect.

(B) Countries that do not currently grant patents on life-sustaining drugs are, for the most part, countries with large populations.
If anything, this option also strengthens. Therefore, incorrect.

Choices A and B both present advantages available in countries without patents on the drugs - manufacturing the drugs can be profitable (choice A) and there is a large potential market (choice B). Neither presents a drawback to abolishing the patents.

(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.
Choice C is incorrect since the possibility of patenting manufacturing processes introduces some limitation to the benefits of abolishing patents on the drugs, but does not mean that there would be no benefits. But what about the access of these new life sustaining drugs to people, we cannot comment on that.

(D) Pharmaceutical companies can afford the research that goes into the development of new drugs only if patents allow them to earn high profits.
If without patents pharmaceutical companies could not afford to develop new drugs, then abolishing patents would mean that people would have reduced access to new life-sustaining drugs, thereby weakening the argument presented. Therefore, choice D is the correct answer.

(E) Countries that grant patents on life-sustaining drugs almost always ban their importation from countries that do not grant such patents.
Choice E present a further way in which patents are linked to restrictions on the availability of new life-sustaining drugs, and therefore it support rather than weakens the argument in favor of abolishing patents.

(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.

Hi Firstly, in weaken/strengthen question, "some" is avoidable because we need to have a firm arguments/statement to weaken/strengthen

Coming back to the choice, this statement is talking about patenting the process, but is patenting the process happening in the countries where the products are not allowed to be patented?
We don't know that: uncertainty, so burn this choice and move.

I am still confused between C and D.

In my view, (D) is a bit out of scope... because
Firstly, question has never told about Profit
Secondly, If D is true, then does it conflict to "In countries in which new-life sustaining drugs cannot be patent, such drugs are sold at widely affordable prices" ? because if D is true, then we won't have new drugs.

To answer your question, first take a look at (C):

You can look at (C) in a couple of ways:

We know from the passage that drugs are affordable in some countries that do not allow them to be patented. We need to think how this aligns with some countries as described in (C) -- it could be that the drugs are currently affordable even though certain parts of the manufacturing process are patented, in which case (C) has no impact on the argument.

But, you could argue that a company that patents part of the manufacturing process could still achieve a monopoly on the production of a drug. This would diminish some of the improvements in future access to new life-sustaining drugs. However, there could be many ways to manufacture the same drug, and patenting one part of the manufacturing process does not prevent another company from producing it using a non-patented process and selling it cheaply. This way of looking at (C) would weaken the argument a little.

Since you can't tell whether (C) weakens the argument a bit or not at all, eliminate (C).

(D) suggests that pharmaceutical companies need the profits they get from selling patented drugs at high prices to afford the research that enabled them to make this new drug. If these companies are not allowed to sell a new drug at a high price, they will not be able to research any new drugs. This would seriously restrict future access to new life-sustaining drugs as there simply wouldn't BE any new life-sustaining drugs!

Also, (D) doesn't really conflict with "In countries in which new-life sustaining drugs cannot be patented, such drugs are sold at widely affordable prices" -- (D) tells us the drug companies need to make a profit but it doesn't tell us where that profit needs to be made. If we combine (D) with this sentence from the passage, we can assume the drug companies need to make their profits in countries where patent protection is in effect. This is probably bad news for the people needing the drugs in countries where patent protections are in place but now we are getting out of scope...

From looking at both of these answer choices we can see that (C) might weaken the argument but (D) blows a hole in it. (D) weakens the argument most out of the available options, so (D) is the correct answer.

I hope that helps!

the almighty GMATNinja, is it right to see C as a contradicting evidence to what is being provided as a premise in the passage? from the numerous post on other CRs so far, I see a trend that you do not want to explain the passage's information, but rather, take it as truth. Option C somewhat argues against the premise in the passage saying the affordable prices of life sustain drugs are not the case even in countries that ban patents.

The information provided in (C) does not directly contradict anything in the passage. As we said in our previous post, you could read (C) as weakening the idea that banning patents will make new drugs affordable. But that’s exactly the point. We’re asked for an answer choice that weakens the argument. So, the correct answer is going to seem like it contradicts the passage in some way.

The problem is that (C) doesn’t necessarily do that. So, it isn’t the best answer choice, as we explained in the post linked above. But it’s not uncommon to find an answer choice that seems to contradict the passage, especially with a question that asks us to weaken the argument.

I hope that helps!

In countries in which new-life sustaining drugs cannot be patented, such drugs are sold at widely affordable prices; – Certain specific drugs are sold at affordable prices in countries in which they can’t be patented.

those same drugs, where patented, command premium prices because the patents shield patent- holding company from competitors. – Same drugs are sold at higher prices in countries in which patents apply. The reason? The patents keep potential competitors at bay.

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. –
‘These facts’:

1.in countries in which patents do not apply, the drugs are affordable,
2. and in countries where patents apply, the drugs are more expensive.

Based on these facts, if patenting of such drugs is abolished everywhere, access to them can be improved.

Author’s logic:

Drugs are significantly cheaper in countries in which they can’t be patented than in countries in which they can (basis).
Therefore, if such drugs are not granted patent at all, they can become more accessible (main point).


Gap(s) in logic:

(I’m using my real-world understanding of patents here)
Why are patents granted in the first place? To incentivize companies to spend time and money on research and development. If a competitor could copy a drug and compete right away, manufacturers would not have as much incentive to invest in research.
Gap: What if pharmaceutical companies are not incentivized enough to work on new drugs if they can’t patent and sell at a premium?



Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
Framework
We’re looking for a piece of information that would reduce my confidence in the main point 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.

i.e., the correct answer should lead me in the direction that if such drugs are not granted a patent at all, they'll probably NOT become more accessible.

A prediction that comes to mind: Pharma companies will stop research on new drugs if they can’t sell them at a premium.



A. In countries in which life-sustaining drugs cannot be patented, their manufacturer is neverthless a profitable enterprise.
Incorrect. In countries in which such drugs cannot be patented manufacturers selling non-patented drugs are anyway profitable. So, these companies can continue to manufacture and sell. That is something we were anyway not wondering about.
But what about manufacturers in countries with patent laws? Would those guys remain profitable if the patents were removed? Can we extrapolate from what this option says that manufacturers in countries with patents would remain profitable even without patents? We cannot. We do not know whether and how the cost structures vary in the two different sets of countries.
In fact, this answer choice mildly indicates that drug manufacturers can generate profits even if patents are not applicable. And thus, if anything, this answer mildly strengthens the argument.


B. Countries that do not currently grant patents on life-sustaining drugs are, for the most part, countries with large populations.
Incorrect. Learning this new piece of information does not impact my confidence in the argument. I learn about a typical characteristic of patent-free countries. However, can overall access by improved by removing patents? I do not learn anything new along those lines. No impact.


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.
Incorrect. Statement: In some countries, certain drug-manufacturing processes can be patented even if the drugs can’t be.


It seems that there is an alternative to patenting drugs – the drug-manufacturing process can be patented instead in some countries. And patenting the process could have a similar impact on prices as patenting the drug itself. The main point, however, is about improving the future access to new life-sustaining drugs, and not about solving the issue of future access to new life-sustaining drugs completely. And so, even if there is still some other hurdle, I don’t learn anything about whether removing one hurdle will help or not.

Argument: X is a hurdle in the goal of making life-sustaining drugs accessible. If we remove X, access will be improved.

Option C: Y is also a hurdle.

This information does not change my confidence in the argument.
Learning that Y is also a hurdle does not help me understand whether removing X will improve the situation.

No impact.


D. Pharmaceutical companies can afford the research that go into the development of new drugs only if patents allow them to earn high profits.
Correct. Pharma companies can afford the research only if patents allow them to earn high profits. ‘Only if’. So, if patents are not there to enable pharma companies to earn high profits, pharmaceutical companies won’t be able to afford the research. If they can’t afford the research, they’ll probably not conduct the research. If they do not conduct such research, access to such drugs will reduce.

This answer significantly weakens the argument.

E. Countries that grant patents on life-sustaining drugs almost always ban their importation from countries that do not grant such patents.
Incorrect. So, countries that allow patents take certain steps to avoid import from countries that do not grant such patents.
So what would happen to access if patenting is abolished? Perhaps then import would be allowed. This answer choice goes in the opposite direction of what we’re looking for. If anything, it strengthens the argument that abolishing the practice of granting patents will improve access.




SC note: Notice the wording ‘afford the research that go into the development’ in option D. The plural form of the verb ‘go’ indicates that ‘research’ in this context is plural.

Here's what I don't understand with this question - the question clearly states that countries without patent law ALSO make life sustaining drugs. Looking at this, it doesn't make sense to me how pharmaceutical companies cannot afford it when countries without patent law are affording it at cheaper prices. This is why I chose C because it reliably weakens the argument, albeit not strongly. What am I missing here?

Should I instead just ignore these convoluted side-cases? I think at this point I've got 10-15+ wrong in CR simply because of overthinking the options and finding them contradictory. Maybe it's best to assume that any option by GMAC is NEVER contradictory.

Thanks

Posted from my mobile device

1.

What do you mean by "afford it" here?
Afford what? Is this in the context of option D?

2.

You don't need to assume anything

Look at the question stem again:


The question asks us to accept the answer choices as true and then check which one weakens the most.