The pharmaceutical industry argues that because new drugs will not be

The reason why i eliminated D and chose B is that
Patents are specific to a formulation/product mix or innovation and not to the product so patent doesn't mean someone can't create a product which can compete my product.

if patent would mean that, it would create monopoly ( you can see there is always a generic medicine ~ local vs branded ones )
Patent protects your mix & the process you use to make the product, not the product itself.
No law would favor monopoly

Arg says >> Pharma industry >> new drugs with high dev costs make sense only if they can be recouped in future sales -> increase patent duration

opp says no need given not done in other industries

Aim - to weaken opp and strengthen pharma POV

The pharmaceutical industry argues that because new drugs will not be developed unless heavy development costs can be recouped in later sales, the current 20 years of protection provided by patents should be extended in the case of newly developed drugs. However, in other industries new-product development continues despite high development costs, a fact that indicates that the extension is unnecessary.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the pharmaceutical industry???s argument against the challenge made above?

(A) No industries other than the pharmaceutical industry have asked for an extension of the 20-year limit on patent protection. - So what? Doesn;t really affect the argument

(B) Clinical trials of new drugs, which occur after the patent is granted and before the new drug can be marketed, often now take as long as 10 years to complete. - works but there may be an overlap in the 20 year period so hold

(C) There are several industries in which the ratio of research and development costs to revenues is higher than it is in the pharmaceutical industry. - arg doesnt talk aout r&d to revenue ?

(D) An existing patent for a drug does not legally prevent pharmaceutical companies from bringing to market alternative drugs, provided they are sufficiently dissimilar to the patented drug. -> This means the new product has to be suff. dissimlar to be launched -> less comp if patent is there - makes sense - can be correct

(E) Much recent industrial innovation has occurred in products???for example, in the computer and electronics industries???for which patent protection is often very ineffective. - out of scope talks about other industries

is logic correct?