prep T1-44

[stanley705]

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?

(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.


答案是D
題目第一段大概是有專利的藥可以賣比較貴
可是第二段就有點看不太懂了
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.
還有答案為什麼是D??
煩請各位高手解惑啦

[hey]

第二句的意思是說, 假如在newly developed life-sustaining drugs的專利被廢除的話, 那麼取得new life-sustaining drugs的過程會被改善
選(D)的原因是只有專利使他們賺得高額的利潤, 製藥公司才能負擔研發新藥的研究, 因為如果沒有高額的利潤的話, 製藥公司沒有辦法負擔研究, 因此其並不會研製新藥, 如沒研製新藥, 那麼新場的消費者又如何能取得新藥呢

[stanley705]

喔~了解了 thanks~
因為arguement 說 新drugs專利廢除 可以使取得新drugs的過程被改善 而D說 只有專利才可以讓藥廠製有利潤能力研發新drugs,
所以新drugs專利廢除會使藥廠根本沒辦法研發新drugs 也根本沒辦法取得新drugs了

[zeta1203]

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.
請問這裡的PRACTICE怎麼翻阿??

[hey]

其實這個practice要與後面的字一起看...所以practice of granting patents on newly developed life-sustaining drugs, 即是説賦與newly developed life-sustaining drugs專利的方法或手段

[chris8888]

practice 一般可以翻譯成 措施 / 作法 / 手段

[chris8888]

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?

問 : 專利權廢止可以改善取得藥品得管道.

(A) In countries in which life-sustaining drugs cannot be patented, their manufacture is nevertheless a profitable enterprise.
是不是賺錢公司, 無關
(B) Countries that do not currently grant patents on life-sustaining drugs are, for the most part, countries with large populations.
人口多不多, 無關
(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.
產品不允許被專利化, 製造過程專利化那也是還是不容易完全競爭, 價格依舊很高, 無法推翻.
(D) Pharmaceutical companies can afford the research that goes into the development of new drugs only if patents allow them to earn high profits.製藥公司付不起發展新藥的錢, 惟有透過專利化讓他們獲利才可以, 暗示 : 若是廢除專利權, 將導致製造公司不打算研發新產品, 消費者根本沒有更便宜的產品可以取得, 失敗.
(E) Countries that grant patents on life-sustaining drugs almost always ban their importation from countries that do not grant such patents.
無關於進口措施, 都已經講要廢止了, 還去提grant patents, 白目選項.