Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

 It is currently 25 Jun 2016, 10:53

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

In countries in which new-life sustaining drugs cannot be

Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 15 Nov 2006
Posts: 219
Location: Ohio
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 33 [7] , given: 0

In countries in which new-life sustaining drugs cannot be [#permalink]

Show Tags

18 Mar 2007, 20:11
7
KUDOS
4
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

5% (low)

Question Stats:

79% (02:24) correct 21% (01:28) wrong based on 651 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

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.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
Current Student
Status: Attending Duke in May!
Joined: 08 Jan 2013
Posts: 32
Location: United States (NC)
GMAT 1: 640 Q42 V35
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 26 [8] , given: 18

Re: In countries in which new-life sustaining drugs cannot be [#permalink]

Show Tags

16 Apr 2013, 23:58
8
KUDOS
3
This post was
BOOKMARKED
nitinneha wrote:
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.

The key to solving CR questions is to fully understand the conclusion. Always find the conclusion.

The conclusion here is the final sentence: 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.

In all weaken/strengthen arguments the conclusion contains the main point that can be attacked or supported. So since we want to weaken the argument, we're looking for the answer that most successfully attacks this conclusion.

A.) In countries in which life-sustaining drugs cannot be patented, their manufacturer is neverthless a profitable enterprise. This statement somewhat strengthens the conclusion, if companies without patents are profitable, the patents could not be necessary.

B.) Countries that do not currently grant patents on life-sustaining drugs are, for the most part, countries with large populations This statement neither weakens or strengthens the conclusion, it merely points out that the non-patent granting countries are ones 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. This is the trap answer. There is logic behind this answer that could potentially weaken the argument. You probably said to yourself, "if we don't necessarily patent the drug itself, but the manufacturing process instead, it could (key word here) lead to the monopoly-type environment that the author wants to avoid!" But, the reverse is also true. Try not to get sucked in. There are many ways to manufacture drugs and even if one way is patented it can still be possible to reach the non-patent Utopia (through multiple manufacturing processes) that author is hoping for. This answer is close, but not quite up to snuff.

D.) Pharmaceutical companies can afford the research that go into the development of new drugs only if patents allow them to earn high profits. BINGO! This answer hits the conclusion right in the sweet spot! The Companies need the profits that the patents provide to enable the research to create the "future access to new life sustaining drugs" that the author talks about directly the conclusion argument. No HIGH (key word) profits = no new drugs. This kills the author's argument.

E.) Countries that grant patents on life-sustaining drugs almost always ban their importation from countries that do not grant such patents. This statement actually strengthens the argument of the author. If patent granting countries banned their supposedly cheaper imports, it would further increase the profits on the companies that are granted patents that the author says need to be eliminated. This is the opposite of what we're looking for.
Intern
Joined: 13 Nov 2010
Posts: 42
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 17 [3] , given: 2

Re: In countries in which new-life sustaining drugs cannot be [#permalink]

Show Tags

23 Apr 2012, 05:44
3
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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 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 argument?
A. In countries in which life-sustaining drugs cannot be patented, their manufacturer 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 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.

Explanation:

The argument states that due to patents the profits of pharmaceutical manufacturing companies won't be earn as much profits as in case of no patents ,so if there is no patents there is more profits and with patents less profit and the conclusion is by abolition of patents the future access to life saving drugs can improve and companies would earn more profit , so we should attack the conclusion by saying that with patents the companies can earn more profit or without patents the access to life saving drugs would decrease and companies would earn less profit . By looking closely we can see that option d states that if govt promises to grant patents only companies develops new life saving drugs as a result companies would earn more profit. i rejected option c because option c states that only drug manufacturing process can be patented and not drugs so the argument anywhere does not states that drug manufacturing process can be patented and not drugs so we can reject option c on this basis.

if you like this give me +1 kudos
Manager
Joined: 22 Dec 2006
Posts: 77
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 5 [1] , given: 0

Re: In countries in which new-life sustaining drugs cannot be [#permalink]

Show Tags

23 Mar 2007, 04:17
1
KUDOS
D as C only supports the arguement for unpatended drugs.
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 1957
Followers: 1865

Kudos [?]: 6070 [1] , given: 251

Re: In countries in which new-life sustaining drugs cannot be [#permalink]

Show Tags

25 Feb 2013, 22:42
1
KUDOS
Expert's post
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
jkaustubh wrote:
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
_________________

Aiming to score 760+ on the GMAT? Attend our free webinars to learn how to:

[*] Master Number Properties
[*] Ace Critical Reasoning

The webinars will start at 7 AM PST on the 11th and 12th of July, 2015.

Director
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Posts: 751
Location: Dallas, Texas
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 95 [0], given: 0

Re: In countries in which new-life sustaining drugs cannot be [#permalink]

Show Tags

18 Mar 2007, 23:42
D !
_________________

"Education is what remains when one has forgotten everything he learned in school."

Senior Manager
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
Posts: 298
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 0

Re: In countries in which new-life sustaining drugs cannot be [#permalink]

Show Tags

19 Mar 2007, 07:34
One more D
VP
Joined: 06 Feb 2007
Posts: 1023
Followers: 21

Kudos [?]: 164 [0], given: 0

Re: In countries in which new-life sustaining drugs cannot be [#permalink]

Show Tags

19 Mar 2007, 08:05
Yeah, D makes a lot of sense...
Manager
Joined: 28 Feb 2007
Posts: 197
Location: California
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 0

Re: In countries in which new-life sustaining drugs cannot be [#permalink]

Show Tags

19 Mar 2007, 08:12
nitinneha wrote:
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
Manager
Joined: 15 Nov 2006
Posts: 219
Location: Ohio
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 33 [0], given: 0

Re: In countries in which new-life sustaining drugs cannot be [#permalink]

Show Tags

20 Mar 2007, 17:15
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
Manager
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 93
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 0

Re: In countries in which new-life sustaining drugs cannot be [#permalink]

Show Tags

20 Mar 2007, 17:28
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
Manager
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 93
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 0

Re: In countries in which new-life sustaining drugs cannot be [#permalink]

Show Tags

20 Mar 2007, 17:30
C is wrong as it doesn't counter the point that abolishing patent might lead to stagnation in research and hence no new life saving drugs, which the author is very concerned about.
Manager
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 115
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

Re: In countries in which new-life sustaining drugs cannot be [#permalink]

Show Tags

20 Mar 2007, 21:49
One and only D.
BSchool Forum Moderator
Status: Flying over the cloud!
Joined: 17 Aug 2011
Posts: 913
Location: Viet Nam
GMAT Date: 06-06-2014
GPA: 3.07
Followers: 70

Kudos [?]: 495 [0], given: 44

Re: In countries in which new-life sustaining drugs cannot be [#permalink]

Show Tags

09 Dec 2011, 02:53
+1 D
_________________

Rules for posting in verbal gmat forum, read it before posting anything in verbal forum
Giving me + 1 kudos if my post is valuable with you

The more you like my post, the more you share to other's need

CR: Focus of the Week: Must be True Question

Manager
Joined: 08 Aug 2011
Posts: 203
GPA: 3.5
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 13 [0], given: 51

Re: In countries in which new-life sustaining drugs cannot be [#permalink]

Show Tags

07 Jan 2012, 23:03
D it is.If patents are banned then future research for more life saving drugs will also be hampered hence patents should not be banned.
Current Student
Status: MBA Candidate, Class of 2017
Affiliations: SMU Cox
Joined: 24 Sep 2012
Posts: 195
Location: United States (TX)
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GMAT 1: 710 Q48 V39
GPA: 3.75
WE: Project Management (Energy and Utilities)
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 57 [0], given: 31

Re: In countries in which new-life sustaining drugs cannot be [#permalink]

Show Tags

24 Feb 2013, 08:56
why is B not corect can somebody throw a light on this??
_________________

My GMAT debrief

greatness is not about possessing talent but about having the discipline to summon that talent whenever needed!!!

Please Kudos my post if it helped you!!

Manager
Joined: 19 Aug 2012
Posts: 58
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 43 [0], given: 9

Re: In countries in which new-life sustaining drugs cannot be [#permalink]

Show Tags

10 Apr 2013, 05:39
can anyone explain all the option choices..

_________________

giving kudos is the best thing you can do for me..

Intern
Joined: 05 Jan 2013
Posts: 3
Location: United States (CA)
Concentration: General Management, Technology
GPA: 3.5
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 13

Re: In countries in which new-life sustaining drugs cannot be [#permalink]

Show Tags

20 Aug 2013, 00:25
Took me a while to understand this.

Weaken: Pharma companies can only afford to develop these drugs b/c patents make them $$. (D) weakens because if pharma didn't have patents, they wouldn't have the$$ to develop new drugs.
Senior Manager
Joined: 10 Mar 2013
Posts: 290
GMAT 1: 620 Q44 V31
GMAT 2: 690 Q47 V37
GMAT 3: 610 Q47 V28
GMAT 4: 700 Q50 V34
GMAT 5: 700 Q49 V36
GMAT 6: 690 Q48 V35
GMAT 7: 750 Q49 V42
GMAT 8: 730 Q50 V39
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 76 [0], given: 2404

Re: In countries in which new-life sustaining drugs cannot be [#permalink]

Show Tags

03 May 2014, 18:11
Honestly, all of the answers seem bad to me, because none of them seem to affect the conclusion of "access" to new drugs. However, D is the best answer.
Intern
Joined: 19 May 2014
Posts: 9
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 14

Re: In countries in which new-life sustaining drugs cannot be [#permalink]

Show Tags

19 May 2014, 04:50
Looks like D is the best choice :- more profit and more money for R & D.
Re: In countries in which new-life sustaining drugs cannot be   [#permalink] 19 May 2014, 04:50

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 23 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
1 People cannot be morally responsible for things over which 7 04 Sep 2010, 05:43
6 People cannot be morally responsible for things over which 3 31 Jul 2010, 04:20
People cannot be morally responsible for things over which 19 02 Oct 2008, 15:36
1 The fight against the drug trade in Country X should focus 10 10 Oct 2007, 12:36
People cannot be morally responsible for things over which 9 27 Mar 2007, 10:44
Display posts from previous: Sort by