还没有登录哦！
[Critical Reasoning]
试题详情
题目：
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?
选项:
A、In countries in which life-sustaining drugs cannot be patented, their manufacture is nevertheless a profitable enterprise.
B、Countries that do not currently grant patents on life-sustaining drugs are, for the most part, countries with large populations.
C、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.
D、Pharmaceutical companies can afford the research that goes into the development of new drugs only if patents allow them to earn high profits.
E、Countries that grant patents on life-sustaining drugs almost always ban their importation from countries that do not grant such patents.
答案:
D
提问：
选了c
解答：
点赞0
阅读2927
提问：
选了c
解答：
点赞0
阅读2928
提问：
我读的原文和选项的意思大概是，有没有专利对新药的价格什么影响，如果现在不设置专利了，人们就会更容易买到新药。
A、没有专利不会影响利润。跟原文没关系。
B、没有专利的国家的特点。没关系
C，虽然要没有专利，但别的什么过程中会有。我觉得意思就是只取消药的专利是没有用的。感觉有点关系。
D。在什么情况下公司会研究新药，感觉也没关系。
E，有专利的国家会禁止从别的国家进口没有专利的药。感觉原文说的是没有专利会怎样，好像没关系。
于是我就选了C。。
解答：
点赞0
阅读2683
问个问题
注册太麻烦？点这里查看免费答疑吧！
博币不足
加"GMAT小百科"小智微信
直接送200
