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.
A无关,B无关,C some无意义,但如果这里的some去掉且换成绝对表示,这就是一个削弱选项:即使药的专利权被放开了,我制造药的技术仍然是有专利的,仍然避免了竞争,acess并不会improve
D正确,E看上去有点增强的意味,但实质上与文章逻辑无关:就算我能够从没有专利的国家进口药物,这并不能否认我国内的专利取消了,acess会更improve。
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论