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=新药品,如果废除专利没有新药品就是削弱了(断桥)
https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/forums/post61045.html#p61045
Ron说削弱题的选项可能只有一个是削弱,也有可能是都削弱看哪个强,但是分析下来感觉只有D选项是削弱,其他都没关系,C选项比较迷惑,但是实际上说的还是要加Patent的事儿,反而与结论不符了
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论