V04-19

Question

The pharmaceutical industry is fighting a losing battle: it simply does not have the resources to prosecute all of the generic companies which illegally copy the patented molecules. Because the number of companies which will be charged with a crime is so limited, the actions of the pharmaceutical industry will have a minimal impact on the number of companies which illegally copy patented molecules.
 
The answer to which of the following questions would best help evaluate the accuracy of the conclusion above?

A. Will pharmaceutical industry lawyers dedicate the majority of their time to prosecuting companies which illegally copy patented molecules?
B. Is a small minority of companies responsible for the majority of illegal copying of molecules?
C. Do many companies which illegally copy the patented molecules share their products with other companies?
D. Will new dedicated enforcement agency permit the pharmaceutical industry to more quickly and easily identify companies who illegally copy patented molecules?
E. Will the threat of prosecution alter the behaviour of those companies which illegally copy patented molecules?

AOBang · Accepted Answer

If confused with B and E

Conclusion is : 'the actions of the pharmaceutical industry will have a minimal impact on the number of companies which illegally copy patented molecules' What we have to do : Find a question 'answer to which would best help evaluate the accuracy of the conclusion above'

Remember we have only one question to ask (to someone) and an answer to this question should help us evaluate the accuracy of the conclusion above. Option B : Is a small minority of companies responsible for the majority of illegal copying of molecules? Let say, answer is, Yes, a 'small' minority of companies are responsible for the majority of illegal copying of molecules Then we need to ask another question - is pharmaceutical industry prosecuting these 'specific' companies? - again Yes or No - Option B failed, second question not allowed Option E : Will the threat of prosecution alter the behaviour of those companies which illegally copy patented molecules? Let say, answer is, Yes, the threat of prosecution will alter the behaviour of those companies which illegally copy patented molecules - ok, then we can say that conclusion in question is inaccurate Let say, answer is, No, the threat of prosecution won't alter the behaviour of those companies which illegally copy patented molecules -ok, then we can say the conclusion holds good. >> So we can evaluate conclusion of the argument by getting answer to question in option E. (no need to think of 'No' case for option B as we need a definite solution for both Yes and No answeres... option B failed with Yes case) ---------------------------------------------------------------- - Hit

if this helped

Bunuel · Answer

Official Solution:

The pharmaceutical industry is fighting a losing battle: it simply does not have the resources to prosecute all of the generic companies which illegally copy the patented molecules. Because the number of companies which will be charged with a crime is so limited, the actions of the pharmaceutical industry will have a minimal impact on the number of companies which illegally copy patented molecules.
 
The answer to which of the following questions would best help evaluate the accuracy of the conclusion above?

A. Will pharmaceutical industry lawyers dedicate the majority of their time to prosecuting companies which illegally copy patented molecules?
B. Is a small minority of companies responsible for the majority of illegal copying of molecules?
C. Do many companies which illegally copy the patented molecules share their products with other companies?
D. Will new dedicated enforcement agency permit the pharmaceutical industry to more quickly and easily identify companies who illegally copy patented molecules?
E. Will the threat of prosecution alter the behaviour of those companies which illegally copy patented molecules?

Situation: The argument concludes that the prosecution of a small number of generic companies that copy the patented molecules illegally will have a minimal impact on the overall number of generic companies that engage in illegal copying. The correct answer must relate specifically to this issue and provide additional insight as to whether it seems reasonable. 
 
A. One premise of the argument states that the pharmaceutical industry does not have the resources to prosecute all companies which copy the patented molecules illegally; while a second premise states the number of companies which will be charged with a crime is limited. These statements indicate that the legal resources of the pharmaceutical industry are too limited to have a major impact on the overall number of generic companies which engage in illegal copying, no matter how these lawyers dedicate their time.
 
B. If a small minority of generic companies were responsible for the majority of illegal copying, the actions of the pharmaceutical industry could have a significant impact on the number of copied molecules. The conclusion of the argument, however, was about the number of generic companies that copied patented molecules illegally; this number would remain unaffected.
 
C. Whether patented molecules are copied illegally and then shared with other companies is not relevant to the conclusion.
 
D. Similar to answer choice A, this choice is limited by the premises of the argument. If new dedicated enforcement agency permits the pharmaceutical industry to more quickly and easily identify individuals who illegally copy patented molecules, then the pharmaceutical industry will know who is breaking the law. However, the lack of industry resources still restricts the industry’s ability to prosecute a large number of generic companies, even if they are identified as companies that illegally copy patented molecules.
 
 E. CORRECT.  The argument concludes that the prosecution of a small number of companies that copy the patented molecules illegally will have a minimal impact on the overall number of companies that engage in illegal copying. However, if the threat of prosecution were enough to “alter the behavior” of others (i.e., deter them from illegally copying patented molecules), the actions of the pharmaceutical industry could have a significant impact on the number of generic companies that illegally copy patented molecules.

Answer: E

vandyke1234 · Answer

I think this is a  high-quality  question and I agree with explanation.

Shiridip · Answer

The OE changes the conclusion to answer this question. In choice B it says the conclusion is and in answer choice E .

If we go by the conclusion stated in Choice E then even Choice B fits the answer. i.e. If a small minority of generic companies were responsible for the majority of illegal copying, the actions of the pharmaceutical industry could have a significant impact

sayantanc2k · Answer

The argument is about  impact on (number of) other companies  who are not prosecuted, rather than on the industry as a whole. 
Answer option B with yes and no - you would not get opposing conclusions. (that the other companies would be / would not be affected).
Answer option E with yes and no - you would get opposing answers.
The OA and OE both are alright.

Sriparnacj · Answer

I think this is a  high-quality  question and I agree with explanation.

scobbyabhi9 · Answer

If this option plays a role - Is a small minority of companies responsible for the majority of illegal copying of molecules? and the companies fight against the small minority as stated will that not make a significant difference, and hence evaluate the accuracy of the argument?

Marcost · Answer

Hi,
Why do we have to assume that “to alter the behavior” means that companies will deter from copying patented molecules. What if they improve their strategy in order to avoid prosecution?. This would not mean a reduction on the number of companies copying patented molecules.

thelonghalloween · Answer

I think this is a  high-quality  question and I agree with explanation.

Palpable · Answer

I picked B but now I realize the conclusion specifically talks about 'minimal impact on the number of companies' not 'impact in general'. so if even a small minority had the most overall impact i.e., responsible for majority of illegal practices, it would still be minimal in terms of reducing the number of companies. Whereas, if we look at E, the threat of prosecution as a causation of change in behavior of illegal companies - yes, this might scare the companies who are not prosecuted directly. And therefore, the answer to this must be no in order for the conclusion to hold , otherwise impact wil be high in terms of number of companies.

Hope I made sense.

bumpbot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club BumpBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

V04-19

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards