The cost of drug research and development is staggering. : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR)
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 23 Jan 2017, 08:58

### 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

# The cost of drug research and development is staggering.

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Director
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 701
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 417 [0], given: 0

The cost of drug research and development is staggering. [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 May 2008, 05:44
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 1 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

The cost of drug research and development is staggering. Drug companies have recently argued that this is a good reason to lengthen the patent on new drugs and disallow the importation of drugs from Canada. But some senior citizens advocate groups have argued that the high cost of research and development is a good reason to allow generic and, perhaps, imported drugs to benefit those with fixed incomes.

Which statement, if true, best resolves this seeming paradox?

(A) The advocate groups are aware that drugs from Canada are poorly regulated and may be dangerous.
(B) The cost of medical care has increased greatly in recent years.
(C) Drug companies invest very little money in research and development.
(D) It is common knowledge that drug companies will not pay for extensive research programs if they do not anticipate any a return on their investment.
(E) The advocate groups also claim the high costs of research should be supported by government grants.
_________________

Persistence+Patience+Persistence+Patience=G...O...A...L

If you have any questions
New!
Manager
Joined: 27 Mar 2008
Posts: 99
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 11 [1] , given: 0

### Show Tags

03 May 2008, 13:55
1
KUDOS
I say E.

Drug companies=We need quotas, etc., because our research costs are too high and we cannot make the money needed to cover our investments if there are cheap drugs coming in from Canada.

Old people=We need cheap drugs because drugs are too expensive now.

In other words, both are complaining about the high cost of research. The paradox lies in the fact that the two groups suggest opposite solutions for the same problem.

If the old people were also arguing for a government grant to help pay for research, this would solve the paradox by allowing the two groups to agree on one solution for the same problem. The drug companies could cover their investments and the old people could get their cheap drugs.
_________________

MBA Blog: University of Minnesota Carlson School of Management- http://unconventionalapplicant.blogspot.com/

CEO
Joined: 17 May 2007
Posts: 2989
Followers: 60

Kudos [?]: 582 [0], given: 210

### Show Tags

03 May 2008, 23:19
What does the bolded part mean ? I am unclear on what exactly it means and am afraid that sentence may hold the key to the answer.

prasannar wrote:
The cost of drug research and development is staggering. Drug companies have recently argued that this is a good reason to lengthen the patent on new drugs and disallow the importation of drugs from Canada. But some senior citizens advocate groups have argued that the high cost of research and development is a good reason to allow generic and, perhaps, imported drugs to benefit those with fixed incomes.

Which statement, if true, best resolves this seeming paradox?

(A) The advocate groups are aware that drugs from Canada are poorly regulated and may be dangerous.
(B) The cost of medical care has increased greatly in recent years.
(C) Drug companies invest very little money in research and development.
(D) It is common knowledge that drug companies will not pay for extensive research programs if they do not anticipate any a return on their investment.
(E) The advocate groups also claim the high costs of research should be supported by government grants.
Manager
Joined: 27 Mar 2008
Posts: 99
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

04 May 2008, 15:17
bsd_lover wrote:
What does the bolded part mean ? I am unclear on what exactly it means and am afraid that sentence may hold the key to the answer.

prasannar wrote:
The cost of drug research and development is staggering. Drug companies have recently argued that this is a good reason to lengthen the patent on new drugs and disallow the importation of drugs from Canada. But some senior citizens advocate groups have argued that the high cost of research and development is a good reason to allow generic and, perhaps, imported drugs to benefit those with fixed incomes.

Which statement, if true, best resolves this seeming paradox?

(A) The advocate groups are aware that drugs from Canada are poorly regulated and may be dangerous.
(B) The cost of medical care has increased greatly in recent years.
(C) Drug companies invest very little money in research and development.
(D) It is common knowledge that drug companies will not pay for extensive research programs if they do not anticipate any a return on their investment.
(E) The advocate groups also claim the high costs of research should be supported by government grants.

It means that domestic drugs are too expensive, so the seniors want cheaper generic and imported drugs to be allowed.
_________________

MBA Blog: University of Minnesota Carlson School of Management- http://unconventionalapplicant.blogspot.com/

CEO
Joined: 17 May 2007
Posts: 2989
Followers: 60

Kudos [?]: 582 [0], given: 210

### Show Tags

04 May 2008, 15:45
But there's nothing in the first statement about "generic drugs" ? Where's the contradiction / paradox ?

carlson2010 wrote:
bsd_lover wrote:
What does the bolded part mean ? I am unclear on what exactly it means and am afraid that sentence may hold the key to the answer.

prasannar wrote:
The cost of drug research and development is staggering. Drug companies have recently argued that this is a good reason to lengthen the patent on new drugs and disallow the importation of drugs from Canada. But some senior citizens advocate groups have argued that the high cost of research and development is a good reason to allow generic and, perhaps, imported drugs to benefit those with fixed incomes.

Which statement, if true, best resolves this seeming paradox?

(A) The advocate groups are aware that drugs from Canada are poorly regulated and may be dangerous.
(B) The cost of medical care has increased greatly in recent years.
(C) Drug companies invest very little money in research and development.
(D) It is common knowledge that drug companies will not pay for extensive research programs if they do not anticipate any a return on their investment.
(E) The advocate groups also claim the high costs of research should be supported by government grants.

It means that domestic drugs are too expensive, so the seniors want cheaper generic and imported drugs to be allowed.
Manager
Joined: 27 Mar 2008
Posts: 99
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

04 May 2008, 15:56
The drug companies call for longer patents. If a company has a patent on a drug, other companies are not allowed to create generic versions. In other words, the drug companies want to restrict competition while the seniors want to encourage competition, two opposite solutions for the same problem of expensive research costs.
_________________

MBA Blog: University of Minnesota Carlson School of Management- http://unconventionalapplicant.blogspot.com/

CEO
Joined: 17 May 2007
Posts: 2989
Followers: 60

Kudos [?]: 582 [0], given: 210

### Show Tags

04 May 2008, 18:29
Thanks carlson, when you explain it this way it makes some sense. However, I feel that the question itself is extremely poorly worded and leaves scope for too much interpretation.
SVP
Joined: 04 May 2006
Posts: 1926
Schools: CBS, Kellogg
Followers: 23

Kudos [?]: 1013 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

04 May 2008, 18:42
carlson2010 wrote:
I say E.

Drug companies=We need quotas, etc., because our research costs are too high and we cannot make the money needed to cover our investments if there are cheap drugs coming in from Canada.

Old people=We need cheap drugs because drugs are too expensive now.

In other words, both are complaining about the high cost of research. The paradox lies in the fact that the two groups suggest opposite solutions for the same problem.

If the old people were also arguing for a government grant to help pay for research, this would solve the paradox by allowing the two groups to agree on one solution for the same problem. The drug companies could cover their investments and the old people could get their cheap drugs.

Carlson,
I like your reasoning! And I think you must have some useful tips for this kind of question! May you share it? Admittedly, I am weak at paradox question!
_________________
Manager
Joined: 27 Mar 2008
Posts: 99
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

04 May 2008, 20:18
bsd_lover wrote:
Thanks carlson, when you explain it this way it makes some sense. However, I feel that the question itself is extremely poorly worded and leaves scope for too much interpretation.

I agree.
_________________

MBA Blog: University of Minnesota Carlson School of Management- http://unconventionalapplicant.blogspot.com/

Manager
Joined: 27 Mar 2008
Posts: 99
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

04 May 2008, 20:30
sondenso wrote:
carlson2010 wrote:
I say E.

Drug companies=We need quotas, etc., because our research costs are too high and we cannot make the money needed to cover our investments if there are cheap drugs coming in from Canada.

Old people=We need cheap drugs because drugs are too expensive now.

In other words, both are complaining about the high cost of research. The paradox lies in the fact that the two groups suggest opposite solutions for the same problem.

If the old people were also arguing for a government grant to help pay for research, this would solve the paradox by allowing the two groups to agree on one solution for the same problem. The drug companies could cover their investments and the old people could get their cheap drugs.

Carlson,
I like your reasoning! And I think you must have some useful tips for this kind of question! May you share it? Admittedly, I am weak at paradox question!

This question wasn't the best example of a paradox. A paradox is usually something that is self-contradictory. In this problem the "paradox" was simply that two groups had opposite solutions for the same problem. I wouldn't really even call this situation a "paradox", its more like a disagreement.

Anyway, to answer your question, whenever I see a "paradox" question, I try to simplify it as much as possible to clearly see where the contradiction is. After that the answer that solves the contradiction just kind of jumps out. In this problem, there wasn't really a self contradiction, so I went with the answer that would align the two parties wishes, solving the "paradox" (if you want to call it that).

I don't know if this explanation helps much, but that's how I do it. Hope it helps.

Anyway, what is the OA? Am I even right?
_________________

MBA Blog: University of Minnesota Carlson School of Management- http://unconventionalapplicant.blogspot.com/

Manager
Joined: 24 Apr 2008
Posts: 56
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 93 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

05 May 2008, 03:41
Thought that D is the answer.
But after looking through the explanation in this thread, I think that E may be the right answer.

Please provide the OA for this question.
VP
Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Posts: 1459
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 256 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

05 May 2008, 05:02
carlson2010 wrote:
I say E.

Drug companies=We need quotas, etc., because our research costs are too high and we cannot make the money needed to cover our investments if there are cheap drugs coming in from Canada.

Old people=We need cheap drugs because drugs are too expensive now.

In other words, both are complaining about the high cost of research. The paradox lies in the fact that the two groups suggest opposite solutions for the same problem.

If the old people were also arguing for a government grant to help pay for research, this would solve the paradox by allowing the two groups to agree on one solution for the same problem. The drug companies could cover their investments and the old people could get their cheap drugs.

Love you explanation. +1
Manager
Joined: 27 Mar 2008
Posts: 99
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

05 May 2008, 13:53
bkk145 wrote:
carlson2010 wrote:
I say E.

Drug companies=We need quotas, etc., because our research costs are too high and we cannot make the money needed to cover our investments if there are cheap drugs coming in from Canada.

Old people=We need cheap drugs because drugs are too expensive now.

In other words, both are complaining about the high cost of research. The paradox lies in the fact that the two groups suggest opposite solutions for the same problem.

If the old people were also arguing for a government grant to help pay for research, this would solve the paradox by allowing the two groups to agree on one solution for the same problem. The drug companies could cover their investments and the old people could get their cheap drugs.

Love you explanation. +1

Thanks!
_________________

MBA Blog: University of Minnesota Carlson School of Management- http://unconventionalapplicant.blogspot.com/

Director
Joined: 26 Jul 2007
Posts: 541
Schools: Stern, McCombs, Marshall, Wharton
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 158 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

06 May 2008, 08:51
I disagree that its E.

The paradox is that drug research cost alot of money so drug companies want to increase the length of patents and keep drug from canada out. But senior citizens advocates argue that the high research costs are the reason we should allow generic drugs and drugs from canada.

In other words: Why would the advocates argue to buy generic and Canadian drugs if it would hurt

If we go with E then were saying that the government should pay for research and development reducing cost. If that is the case then the senior citizens advocates would argue NOT to buy generic drug and drugs from canada. Why would you advocate for the government to pay for research of brand name drugs and then tell people to buy generic and canadian drugs that aren't supported by the grants.

(C) Drug companies invest very little money in research and development.

The drug companies are trying to get trick everyone. The research and development is high but the drug companies actually spend very little actual money on this. So they are actually trying to make everyone believe that this is a high cost when it is not. If we buy into it then we allow them to increase patents lengths and decrease competition allowing them to keep making increased profits.

Remember the drug companies are arguing to increase patents and decrease competition. The advocates are arguing to do the exact oposite.

The advocates realize this and say lets allow seniors to buy generic drugs and drugs from canada because we know the drug compies dont actualy spend a lot of money on research and they are using that to inflate the price.

Drug companies = Research and development is high. We need to reduce competition to compensate.

Old People = Reseaerch and development is high. We need to increase competition lower prices.

In other words: Why would the advocates argue to buy generic and Canadian drugs if it would hurt the American drug companies. The answer is that it wont.

The drug compnies don't spend a lot of money on reasearch and development.
Intern
Joined: 17 Mar 2008
Posts: 18
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

07 May 2008, 16:58

B - Not necessarily because of high R&D cost

C - Goes against what is said in the premise

D - Supports the stand taken by the drug companies

E - if this true, will help keep the cost of R&D of drugs thereby reducing the medical bill of the needy people.
Re: CR:Drugs   [#permalink] 07 May 2008, 16:58
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
2 Spending on research and development by United States 1 19 May 2015, 21:00
13 Recently, the research and development departments at major 10 04 Oct 2013, 07:38
4 Recently, the research and development departments at major 14 10 Jul 2011, 09:02
71 Recently, the research and development departments at major 33 17 Oct 2010, 16:41
36 Spending on research and development by United States 22 08 May 2010, 04:35
Display posts from previous: Sort by