Loading...
As part of an economic development plan. Country Y has made a great effort over the last twenty years to increase the number of new drugs and medical devices produced by its companies—even though there have been budget cuts in some areas. However, despite the increases in government grants and tax incentives, the number of new drugs and devices approved by the government regulatory agency has actually dropped by 30 percent over ten years—even though the approval process has not changed nor the diligence with which it is carried out.
Which of the following, if true, would most help to explain why the 30 percent drop has occurred?
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| As part of an economic development plan. Country Y has made a great effort over the last twenty years to increase the number of new drugs and medical devices produced by its companies—even though there have been budget cuts in some areas. |
|
| However, despite the increases in government grants and tax incentives, the number of new drugs and devices approved by the government regulatory agency has actually dropped by 30 percent over ten years—even though the approval process has not changed nor the diligence with which it is carried out. |
|
The passage presents a puzzling situation rather than making an argument. It starts by showing Country Y's strong 20-year commitment to increasing drug and medical device production, then reveals the surprising contradiction that despite increased government support, approvals actually dropped significantly.
There is no explicit conclusion in this passage - it's presenting a paradox that needs explanation. The implied question is: why did approvals drop 30% despite increased government support and unchanged approval processes?
This isn't a traditional argument structure but rather a 'paradox presentation.' We have Effort (20 years of trying + increased grants/incentives) + Stable Process (unchanged approval standards) = Unexpected Result (30% drop in approvals). The passage sets up a contradiction that demands an explanation, which is what the question stem asks us to provide.
Paradox - We need to explain why approvals dropped 30% despite increased government support and unchanged approval processes
Quantitative claims: 20 years of effort, 30% drop over 10 years. Qualitative claims: same approval process and diligence, increased grants and tax incentives
Look for factors that could cause fewer approvals despite more government support. Since the approval process itself hasn't changed, we need to find reasons why either fewer applications are being submitted, or the applications being submitted are of lower quality, or there are external factors affecting the approval pipeline
This directly explains the paradox. While the government increased support to companies developing drugs and devices, they simultaneously reduced funding for the regulatory agency staff by 25% over 15 years. Fewer staff members means reduced capacity to review and approve applications, creating a processing bottleneck. Even if more drugs and devices are being developed (due to increased incentives), fewer can be approved due to limited regulatory capacity. This perfectly explains why approvals dropped 30% despite unchanged approval processes - the process stayed the same, but there were fewer people to carry it out.
This doesn't explain the paradox at all. The 1-10 year development timeline for drugs is a standard industry fact that would have been consistent throughout the entire period. If anything, with 20 years of effort and 10 years of measured results, this timeline should have allowed Country Y's initiatives to show positive results. This choice doesn't address why approvals decreased despite increased government support.
This is about the relative spending between drugs vs. devices by research companies, but it doesn't explain why total approvals dropped by 30%. Even if companies shifted their spending focus between drugs and devices, we'd expect the total number of approvals to remain stable or increase given the increased government incentives. This choice addresses allocation but not the overall decline.
A 10% decrease in pharmacy graduates doesn't adequately explain a 30% drop in approvals, especially since this affects only drug development personnel, not medical device development. Additionally, pharmacy graduates typically work in retail or clinical settings, not necessarily in the research and development that leads to new drug applications. The magnitude and scope don't match the problem described.
Dependence on foreign patents might create some complications, but it doesn't explain why approvals would drop significantly. If anything, leveraging foreign patents could accelerate development timelines. This choice also only addresses medical devices, not the drugs mentioned in the passage, so it provides only a partial explanation at best.