GMAT - Critical Reasoning - Critical Reasoning - Weaken the argument
In countries in which new-life sustaining drugs cannot be patented, such drugs are sold at widely affordable prices
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 company 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?
(A) In countries in which life-sustaining drugs cannot be patented, their manufacturer is neverthless 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 go 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.
The conclusion states that if the practice of granting patents are abolished, then access to life-saving drugs will be improved. We need an answer choice that weakens this claim. Answer choice A and B seem out of context as they do not impact access to life-saving drugs. Patenting a process and not the drug will not have an impact on accessibility. Answer choice D is correct because if there is no new research taking place due to a shortage of funds, then the lives of people is at stake. So if the patenting is abolished it will lead to a stagnation in research which will then impact the future of people.