PrepTest 105, Section 2, Question 2
A director of the Rexx Pharmaceutical Company argued(79 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(19 more words not shown)
- AVaccines are administered(10 more words not shown)
- BMany of the(13 more words not shown)
- CPharmaceutical companies occasionally(8 more words not shown)
- DPharmaceutical companies other(7 more words not shown)
- EThe cost of(14 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Why should the government pay for developing a product the company will sell? The director offers a reason: these vaccines would be less profitable than other drugs. I can see why that might matter when the government is asking a company to take on a project. But has the director established the lower profits?
The evidence is that each patient receives a vaccine once, whereas a treatment may be sold to the same patient repeatedly. That tells us how often each patient receives a product. How many patients receive it?
Imagine 1,000 people each receiving one vaccine, compared with ten patients each receiving another drug five times. That is 1,000 doses against 50. Fewer doses per patient can still mean more doses overall. Price could matter too: a single expensive dose might bring in more than several cheap ones.
What we’re looking for
We're asked to weaken the support for the director's claim about marketing vaccines. My main concern is the missing customer count. Evidence that vaccines reach many more people would undermine the jump from one dose per patient to lower overall sales and profits.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
A vaccine can reach many more customers even though each customer receives it only once. That is the missing factor in the director's comparison. Our 1,000-versus-50 example shows how a large customer base could offset the lack of repeat purchases.
This doesn't prove vaccines are the most profitable products. Prices and costs still matter, and “many more people” isn't “everyone.” But it gives us a concrete reason the director's dose-frequency evidence may not support the forecast of lower sales. That's enough to weaken this argument.
- B
Treating a disease after it occurs is different from preventing it. But our task isn't to choose between those medical approaches. This fact doesn't compare the number of vaccine customers, sales revenue, or profitability with other products. It therefore doesn't undermine the particular support the director gives for the lower-profit claim.
- C
Companies sell other kinds of products too. That would become useful only with information about those products' sales or profitability. Their mere existence doesn't show that vaccines can generate more business than the director expects. It leaves the one-dose-versus-repeat-doses reasoning untouched.
- D
Other companies making vaccines doesn't establish that vaccines are more profitable than other pharmaceutical products. Competition could even make profits harder to earn. We need something challenging the director's reasoning about the vaccine market, not simply another manufacturer in it.
- E
This removes one possible expense from the manufacturer, but the director is asking for help with development costs, not the cost of giving a patient a dose. It also doesn't tell us whether manufacturers bear administration costs for the other products being compared. Without that comparison, it does much less than A to challenge the forecast of relatively low sales and profits.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.