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.
方案
废止专利→ life-sustaining drugs (LSD)未来会有更多人用
削弱,则说明方案的可行性/可操作性弱;有否定性副作用
A、没专利,就可以赚钱,可行性,加强
B、没专利的国家现在就人口多,与未来无关
C、即使产品没有,加工过程也可以有专利,无关
D、只有有专利(卖的贵,能盈利),制药公司才能有钱研究新药,所以说如果专利被废止,LSD以后都没了,更别谈给人用了,可行性降低,CORRECT
E、有专利的国家禁止进口没有的,无关,甚至加强
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论