PrepTest 151, Section 3, Question 3
Dario: The government should continue to grant patents(76 more words not shown)
Dario and Cynthia disagree over(1 more words not shown)
- Apharmaceutical companies should(5 more words not shown)
- Bpatents should be(5 more words not shown)
- Cdeveloping truly innovative(3 more words not shown)
- Dpharmaceutical companies have(9 more words not shown)
- Edrug patents can(2 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
I can see why a patent might encourage expensive research. If a company expects a reward for a new drug, it has a reason to fund its development. That doesn't answer every question about the policy—what if the reward also lets the company charge very high prices?—but Dario's incentive argument makes sense as far as it goes.
Cynthia raises a different concern. She accepts the importance of innovation, but asks what kind of work this reward encourages. If a cheap tweak receives a patent just as a major breakthrough does, companies may choose the cheaper route. A rule meant to encourage substantially new drugs could instead reward minor changes to old ones.
What we’re looking for
So the disagreement isn't whether innovation matters. It's how broadly patents should be granted. Dario supports patents for all new drug compounds; Cynthia wants them reserved for the truly innovative ones. That's the distinction I'd look for in the answers.
Working the answers
- A
Both speakers support rewarding innovation. Dario says patents reward costly research, and Cynthia wants patents for truly innovative drugs. She objects to extending that reward to minor variations, not to rewarding genuine innovation.
- BCorrect
In the context of the proposed patent policy, Dario says to grant patents for all new drug compounds. Cynthia excludes minor variants and limits patents to truly innovative drugs. A new compound could be only a small modification of an existing drug, so their positions differ on whether that entire group should receive patents.
- C
Dario explicitly describes new-drug research as costly. Cynthia says developing a wholly new drug is much more expensive than tweaking an existing one. Their reasoning is compatible on that point; it doesn't give us a disagreement about the cost of genuine innovation.
- D
Cynthia says companies tend to choose the cheaper modification route. Dario doesn't deny that incentive or discuss minor variants at all. His support for the broader patent policy doesn't establish that he rejects her factual claim about how companies respond to it.
- E
Both treat patents as a possible way to encourage innovation. Cynthia's recommendation to reserve them for truly innovative drugs relies on directing that incentive more carefully. She isn't claiming patents cannot promote innovation; she disputes which drugs should qualify.
More Disagreement questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Disagreement questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.