Naturally occurring chemicals cannot be newly patented once their stru

Has to be D

A naturally occurring compound - approved for use as a drug ---> A report about its structure has been published ---> if report published, it cannot be newly patented

Stimulus contains several facts, not an argument (it lacks conclusion)

Let's summarize the facts:
1) One cannot patent naturally occurring chemical, after its structure has been published
2) To use the chemical as a drug, its structure and effects should be published.

It means that if some natural chemical is used as a drug, its structure has already been published. So nobody can patent it again.


It's (D)

My answer is D.

Since once the structure is published, you cannot patent the naturally occuring chemicals.
You cannot use the natural compound as a drug till it gets tested.

Thus the sequence of event looks like -

Structure gets published -> tested -> Aprroval/Denial

Hence we cannot patents the drug which is approved.

OA please. Thanks.

VeritasKarishma Ma'am, I'm having trouble understanding the 'E' option. Can you please explain it?

- Naturally occurring chemicals (NOC) cannot be newly patented after their structures have been published.
- Before NOC can be used as a drug, it needs to be tested and its chemical structure and observed effects published.

This implies that if an NOC is to be used as a drug, it cannot be newly patented. This is so because if it is to be used as a drug, it will be tested and its chemical structure will be published. If its chemical structure is published, it cannot be newly patented.

(D) Once a naturally occurring compound has been approved for use as a drug, it can no longer be newly patented.
If an NOC has been approved for use as a drug, it means it was tested and its chemical structure was published. This means that it cannot be newly patented.
Hence (D) is correct.

(E) A naturally occurring chemical cannot be patented unless its effectiveness as a drug has been rigorously established.
Whether one can patent an NOC does not depend on whether its effectiveness as a drug has been established. It may or may not be established as a useful drug (during testing). It doesn't affect whether we can patent it.
Whether one can patent it depends on whether its structure has been published or not.
Hence (E) is not correct.

can someone explain why not B???

The correct answer is option D.

Understanding the passage
1. Once their structures get published, naturally occurring chemicals (say, C) cannot be newly patented
2. NOC need to be out through the same rigorous testing program as any synthetic program before they can be used as a drug
3. This testing program results in a published report that details the chemical structure, effects, etc.

What this means:

1) To get cleared for use as a drug: C -> testing program -> published report (including structure) -> Cleared for use as a drug

2) Getting newly patented: C -> if structure gets published -> then C cannot be newly patented

Combining the above,

If C has been cleared for use as a drug, then
1. A report with its structure must have been published
2. Which means that it cannot be newly patented

(D) Once a naturally occurring compound has been approved for use as a drug, it can no longer be newly patented.


Option D is exactly what we arrived at

(A) Any naturally occurring chemical can be reproduced synthetically once its structure is known.
We cannot infer this. We have no idea if knowing the structure equates to being able to reproduce the structure synthetically.

(B) Synthetically produced chemical compounds cannot be patented unless their chemical structures are made public.
The passage only tells us that naturally occurring chemicals cannot be patented if their structures are published. We cannot be sure the same rule applies to synthetically produced chemical compounds. Maybe or maybe not. It is not necessary the same rules apply!

(C) If proven no less effective, naturally occurring chemicals are to be preferred to synthetic compounds for use in drugs.
Effectiveness and preference are completely out of the scope of this passage, which is specifically about patenting and process to get approved for usage as a drug. How effective the chemicals are is beyond scope.

(E) A naturally occurring chemical cannot be patented unless its effectiveness as a drug has been rigorously established.
Can be a confusing choice. But we need to remember - whether a naturally occurring chemical can be patented or not depends on whether its structure is published as per the passage. Nowhere in the passage do we see any indication that the effectiveness of the drug will influence its patenting.

This drug may be very effective or completely ineffective - it will not impact its patenting process.

Hope this helps.
_________________

"it must be put through the same rigorous testing program as any synthetic compound" is that not enough to sat that same rule apply.

it must be put through the same rigorous testing program as any synthetic compound, from this, cant we say thats enough to apply same rules???

Hey Abhishek,

Actually, the phrase - "it must be put through the same rigorous testing program as any synthetic compound" is specific to getting a naturally occurring chemical approved for use as a drug. This phrase is specific to process to get approval for usage as a drug, and is not talking about patenting.

Option B talks about patenting only - and has nothing to do with the above process. All we know about patenting is that a naturally occurring chemical cannot be patented, once its structure is published. But we cannot say the same about synthetic chemical compounds.

Hope this helps.
_________________

Understand the answer D, but I feel that the sentence has been poorly constructed.

"IT" in the second clause could refer to drug or natural compound. If the "it" refers to natural compound then bingo but else it doesn't make sense.

However no other option comes close therefore D has to be chosen nonetheless.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
_________________