The rate of new drug development in Nation X has changed little over the last decade, even though, over the...

GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions

Source: Mock

Critical Reasoning

Assumption

MEDIUM

...

Notes

Post a Query

The rate of new drug development in Nation X has changed little over the last decade, even though, over the same period, the cost of developing a new drug has increased significantly. The patent system in Nation X, because it insulates drug developers from various market pressures, can be expected to produce this sort of cost explosion. Such patent protection allows firms to sell a drug at several times its free- market price for many years, and thus pharmaceutical companies have no incentive to minimize research costs. Greatly limiting the duration of these patent protections would promote more cost-efficient new drug development.

The proposal above relies on which of the following assumptions?

In Nation X, current patent protections create impediments to the development of new drugs.

If the prices of newly developed drugs were subject to market pressures sooner, companies would have a greater incentive to minimize research costs.

If the prices of newly developed drugs were subject to market pressures sooner, pharmaceutical companies would have a greater incentive to increase the number of drugs they develop.

Nation X's current patent system causes some pharmaceutical companies to exaggerate their research costs to consumers.

If the prices of newly developed drugs were subject to market pressures sooner, pharmaceutical companies would have a greater incentive to develop the most medically necessary new drugs.

Solution

Passage Analysis:

Text from Passage	Analysis
The rate of new drug development in Nation X has changed little over the last decade, even though, over the same period, the cost of developing a new drug has increased significantly.	What it says: Drug development rate stayed the same while costs went up a lot What it does: Sets up a puzzle - why didn't rising costs slow down development? What it is: Author's observation about market trends Visualization: Rate: 10 drugs/year → 10 drugs/year (flat), Cost: $100M → $200M (doubled)
The patent system in Nation X, because it insulates drug developers from various market pressures, can be expected to produce this sort of cost explosion.	What it says: Patents protect companies from market forces, which explains the cost increases What it does: Offers an explanation for the puzzle presented in the first statement What it is: Author's explanation/theory
Such patent protection allows firms to sell a drug at several times its free-market price for many years, and thus pharmaceutical companies have no incentive to minimize research costs.	What it says: Patents let companies charge high prices, so they don't worry about keeping research costs down What it does: Explains the mechanism behind how patents cause cost increases What it is: Author's reasoning about cause-and-effect Visualization: Free market price: $50/pill, Patent-protected price: $200/pill (4x higher)
Greatly limiting the duration of these patent protections would promote more cost-efficient new drug development.	What it says: Shortening patent length would make drug companies develop drugs more efficiently What it does: Proposes a solution based on the problem identified earlier What it is: Author's proposed solution/main conclusion

Argument Flow:

The argument starts with an interesting observation (costs went up but development rate stayed the same), then explains why this happened (patents shield companies from market pressures), describes how this works (high prices mean no need to control costs), and finally proposes a fix (shorter patents)

Main Conclusion:

Greatly limiting patent duration would promote more cost-efficient new drug development

Logical Structure:

The author uses a chain of reasoning: Patents cause high costs because they allow high prices → High prices remove incentives to control costs → Therefore, reducing patent protection should restore incentives for cost efficiency. This assumes that shorter patents would actually create enough market pressure to change company behavior

Prethinking:

Question type:

Assumption - We need to find what must be true for the author's conclusion to work. The author concludes that shortening patent duration would lead to more cost-efficient drug development.

Precision of Claims

The key claims involve activities (drug development becoming more cost-efficient) and causation (shorter patents causing this efficiency). We need to focus on what must be true about how companies would respond to shorter patent periods.

Strategy

To find assumptions, we need to identify ways the conclusion could fall apart while keeping all the stated facts intact. The author assumes that if patents are shorter, companies will be forced to become more cost-efficient. What could break this logic? We'll look for gaps between 'shorter patent duration' and 'more cost-efficient development.'

Answer Choices Explained

In Nation X, current patent protections create impediments to the development of new drugs.

This choice suggests that current patents create impediments to developing new drugs. However, the passage states that the rate of new drug development has remained constant over the last decade. If patents were creating impediments to development, we would expect to see a decrease in the development rate. The author's concern is about cost efficiency, not the rate of development itself.

If the prices of newly developed drugs were subject to market pressures sooner, companies would have a greater incentive to minimize research costs.

This choice perfectly captures the core assumption of the argument. The author concludes that limiting patent duration would promote cost-efficient development. For this to work, the author must assume that when drug prices face market pressures sooner (due to shorter patents), companies would indeed have greater incentive to minimize research costs. Without this assumption, the proposed solution wouldn't necessarily lead to the desired outcome of cost efficiency.

If the prices of newly developed drugs were subject to market pressures sooner, pharmaceutical companies would have a greater incentive to increase the number of drugs they develop.

This choice focuses on companies having incentive to increase the number of drugs they develop. However, the argument isn't concerned with the quantity of drug development - the passage explicitly states that the rate of development has remained unchanged. The author's focus is entirely on making development more cost-efficient, not on increasing the number of drugs developed.

Nation X's current patent system causes some pharmaceutical companies to exaggerate their research costs to consumers.

This choice suggests the current system causes companies to exaggerate research costs to consumers. While this might be a side effect of the current patent system, it's not necessary for the author's conclusion to hold. The argument can work even if companies are reporting accurate costs - the point is that they have no incentive to control those costs under the current system.

If the prices of newly developed drugs were subject to market pressures sooner, pharmaceutical companies would have a greater incentive to develop the most medically necessary new drugs.

This choice assumes companies would focus on developing the most medically necessary drugs. While this might be a positive outcome, it's not necessary for the author's specific conclusion about cost efficiency. The argument is about making drug development more cost-efficient regardless of which types of drugs are being developed.

Rate this Solution

Tell us what you think about this solution

...

Forum Discussions

Start a new discussion

Post

Previous Attempts

Loading attempts...