Newspaper editorial: Many pharmaceutical companies

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct85% picked this

   Some "me too" drugs turn out to be more effective than the drugs they were

   Why this is right

   This is super weak because "some" only means "at least one", but it's definitely a benefit to consumers if the "me too" drug is even more effective than the drug it's copying. If something that weakly strengthens is the only answer that strengthens, then it still strengthens "the most".

   Skill tested: Strengthen · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   85%
2. B

   Weakens2% picked this

   If"me too" drugs were prohibited, more money would be available for the development

   This points to one of our objections -- what's the opportunity cost of these "me too" drugs? Sometimes we have to weigh the net benefit of something by considering what we'd get in a world without that thing. According to this answer, we'd potentially get more innovative drugs.

   2%
3. C

   Out of Scope: benefits Big Pharm7% picked this

   Pharmaceutical companies often make more money on a "me too" drug than on

   This sounds like a benefit to the pharmaceutical companies making "me too" drugs but not to the consumer, which is what we're trying to strengthen.

   7%
4. D

   Weakens1% picked this

   If all pharmaceutical companies developed "me too" drugs, fewer innovative drugs

   This is basically the same effect as (B).

   1%
5. E

   Out of Scope5% picked this

   Some pharmaceutical companies lose money on the development of innovative drugs because of the development by other companies

   Unless we count "enjoying the suffering of big pharm companies" as a benefit to consumers (we don't), this answer has nothing to do with benefiting consumers.

   5%