The Story
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?
Question Stem
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?FrameworkWe’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.
Answer choice analysis
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.
Additional Notes
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.