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.

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

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.

D as C only supports the arguement for unpatended drugs.

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.

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

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
_________________

can anyone explain all the option choices..

Thanx in advance

Took me a while to understand this.

Conclusion: Future access to drugs can be improved if NO patents.
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.

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.

Looks like D is the best choice :- more profit and more money for R & D.

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.

I'm gonna try to explain why (C) is wrong.

Let me rewrite the first line..
In countries in which new-life sustaining drugs cannot be patented, such drugs are sold at widely affordable prices.

Now read C. It talks about patenting the PROCESS OF MANUFACTURING THE DRUGS, ANDEAVING THE DRUGS UNPATENTED.

Now this leaves a possiblity that the processed may already be patented in the countries where unpatented drugs are being sokd at affordable prices. Also, this option only talks about "Some" countries, not many. This may not have a significant overall effect.
This leaves only (D), as the rest of the options are irrelevant.

Posted from my mobile device

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.