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.
在新维生药不能被授予专利的国家,这些药价普遍较低;同样的药,如果授予专利,专利会保护专利持有人遭竞争而要求额外费用。这表明如果到处都废除专利,未来维生药会更容易买到
削弱题
(A) 药不授予专利的国家,制造商仍有利润;增强,方向反,排
(B) 不授予专利的国家人口都很多;无关,排
(C) 在某些国家的特殊情况;some,无意义概率,排
(D) 只有专利保证高利润,制药公司才能承受研发成本;即废除专利,公司不能承担成本研发新药,也就不会有新药,削弱,正确
(E) 授予专利的国家会禁止进口不授予专利国家的药;无关,排
请问为什么A是加强。。。有利润就意味着制造商会加大对新药的投资吗?
论点不是投资增加,而是这种药的可得性在专利下会变低,没有专利会变高~a 药不授予专利但生产商也有利润,同时加上论点中的无专利低价理论,自然加强了无专利,可得性上升的结果
哦哦懂了 就是制造商有没有利润也无所谓
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论