扫描二维码，直接登录
题库 / Prep2007E1-CR-44
In countries in which new life-sustaining drugs cannot be patented, such drugs are sold at widely affordable prices; those same drugs, where patented, command premium prices because the patents shield patent-holding manufacturers from competitors. 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.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
In countries in which life-sustaining drugs cannot be patented, their manufacture is nevertheless a profitable enterprise.
Countries that do not currently grant patents on life-sustaining drugs are, for the most part, countries with large populations.
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.
Pharmaceutical companies can afford the research that goes into the development of new drugs only if patents allow them to earn high profits.
Countries that grant patents on life-sustaining drugs almost always ban their importation from countries that do not grant such patents.
废除专利 → future access to new life-sustaining drugs can be improved（未来药物可以更容易获得）
求削弱，也就是废除了专利，药物并不会更容易被获得
D选项：制药公司可以负担得起开发新药的研究，前提是专利允许他们获得高额利润。也就是说废除了专利，制药公司就无法负担新药开发的费用（根据文中premium prices可知，专利保护的药可以赚很多钱 ），new life-sustaining drugs就研制不出来了，就更别提能不能获得了。
C选项：在一些国家特定的制药步骤可以获得专利保护即使他们生产的药本身不能获得专利，只是说了专利获得的事情，和”废除专利保护和药物获得”无关。
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论