PrepTest 108, Section 2, Question 19
Newspaper editorial: Many pharmaceutical companies develop "me too"(69 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(7 more words not shown)
- ASome "me too"(15 more words not shown)
- BIf "me too"(14 more words not shown)
- CPharmaceutical companies often(13 more words not shown)
- DIf all pharmaceutical(11 more words not shown)
- ESome pharmaceutical companies(19 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A drug doesn't have to provide a brand-new effect to help consumers. If it gives the existing product some competition, couldn't that bring prices down? That's the editorial's response to the critics. They call the development redundant because it duplicates an effect already available. But a similar treatment at a competing price could still give consumers something valuable. The editorial points out that even the original drug's price can fall when the competing drug enters the market.
I'd still want to consider what else the research money could have accomplished. Perhaps the company could have developed a new treatment instead of a similar version of an existing one. That is a possible tradeoff, but the editorial's conclusion is limited: these drugs can benefit consumers. It doesn't have to establish that imitation is always the best use of research resources.
What we’re looking for
We're asked to strengthen that conclusion. I don't have a more specific prediction than another reason these drugs can help the people buying or using them. Keep the consumer's benefit in focus; a benefit to the manufacturer alone wouldn't settle this claim.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
Some of the drugs work better than the products they were meant to imitate. Now consumers can gain something besides a possible lower price: a more effective treatment. A product designed to provide a similar effect can turn out to improve on that effect. That directly supports the modest conclusion that these drugs can benefit consumers.
- B
More money for innovative drugs could be a reason to favor a different use of resources. But it doesn't support the editorial's claim about benefits from the competing drugs. If anything, it raises the alternative-investment concern we considered while reading. It also doesn't tell us what treatments that available money would actually produce.
- C
Greater profits for a pharmaceutical company don't automatically mean greater benefits for consumers. The company might earn more while consumers receive the same treatment at the same price. We would need a connection between the company's additional earnings and an advantage for consumers, and C doesn't supply one.
- D
Fewer innovative drugs would be a possible downside of every company pursuing this strategy. That doesn't give us another consumer benefit from the strategy. It also concerns a much broader situation—every company doing this—than the claim that these drugs can sometimes help consumers.
- E
Losing money could be bad for the original developer while consumers still benefit from lower prices or better alternatives. The editorial's conclusion is about consumers, not whether every producer profits. E describes a cost to some companies without establishing an additional benefit to the people the conclusion concerns.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.