­As part of an economic development plan. Country Y has made a great

­As part of an economic development plan. Country Y has made a great effort over the last twenty years to increase the number of new drugs and medical devices produced by its companies—even though there have been budget cuts in some areas. However, despite the increases in government grants and tax incentives, the number of new drugs and devices approved by the government regulatory agency has actually dropped by 30 percent over ten years—even though the approval process has not changed nor the diligence with which it is carried out.

The passage presents a surprising situation in which, even though the government has "over the last twenty years" taken actions to increase the number of new drugs and medical devices produced by the country's companies and the approval process has not changed, the number of new drugs and devices approved by the government regulatory agency has "dropped by 30 percent over ten years."

Which of the following, if true, would most help to explain why the 30 percent drop has occurred?

This question is a Paradox or Best Explains question, and the correct answer will explain why there was a 30 percent decrease over ten years despite a twenty-year effort to achieve an increase.

A. Funding for staffing of the medical regulatory agency in Country Y fell by 25 percent over the last fifteen years.

Seeing this choice, we get the sense that answering this question is going to involve noticing specific details.

What we can notice about the specific details of this choice is that a 25 percent decrease in funding for staffing over fifteen years doesn't quite match up with a 30 percent decrease in approvals over ten years.

Yes, what this choice says would explain a decrease in approvals. In fact, it would explain well a 25 percent decrease over 15 years. After all, the fact that funding for staffing of the agency decreased would explain why approvals by the agency slowed down.

At the same time, this choice's specific information about a 25 percent decrease over fifteen years doesn't seen to explain a larger, 30 percent decrease over a shorter time period, ten years.

So, this choice is likely incorrect, but we can keep it until we find a better one.

Keep for now, but expect to be incorrect.

B. New drugs typically require 1-10 years to be developed for market.

Presumably this fact has been true all along. So, it would not explain why a decrease started 10 years ago.

Eliminate.

C. Research companies’ spending on drugs fell relative to spending on medical devices during this period.

This choice presents a comparison of spending on drugs with spending on medical devices but doesn't say that overall spending on the two categories of products decreased. In fact, for all we know given what this choice says, overall spending could have increased if spending on medical devices increased substantially.

So, this comparison does not explain the decrease in approvals.

Eliminate.

D. The number of graduates from pharmacy schools in Country Y decreased by 10 percent in the last fifteen years.

This choice is like choice (A) and once again is likely incorrect because of specifics,

After all, a 10 percent decrease in graduates from pharmacy schools over 15 years doesn't quite match up with a 30 percent decrease in approvals over 10 years.

What this choice says would perhaps explain a 10 percent decrease over 15 years but doesn't seen to explain a larger, 30 percent, decrease over a shorter time period, 10 years.

So, this choice is likely incorrect.

Keep for now, but expect to be incorrect.

E. Most new medical devices produced in Country Y during the last twenty years have depended crucially on foreign patents.

This choice doesn't explain a decreae in approvals over the past 10 years at all.

Does depending on foreign patents cause a decrease in approvals? We have no reason to believe it does.

Also, something that occurred over the last twenty years would not likely have caused a decrease over only the past ten years.

Eliminate.

Having gone through all the choices, we're left with (A) and (D) as the only ones that could at all explain a decrease.

(A), with its 25 percent decrease in staffing over 15 years, is closer to a 30 percent decrease over 10 years than (D), with it's 10 percent decrease in graduates.

So, its a good thing we kept (A) since (A) is the best choice.

Correct answer: A