LSAT 108 | Section 2 | Logical Reasoning: Q19

LR Question 19 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Newspaper editorial: Many pharmaceutical companies …

QUESTION TYPE: Strengthen

CONCLUSION: “Me too” drugs can benefit consumers.

REASONING: Critics say they’re wasteful, redundant, and provide no new benefits. But when they enter the market, they lower the prices of similar drugs.

ANALYSIS: We need to strengthen the idea that “me too” drugs benefit consumers.

The critics think that they’re wasteful because they duplicate existing drugs. So we could further disprove the critics by showing that there are additional advantages beyond lower prices. Maybe they’re not entirely duplicative and could be better.

___________

1. CORRECT. The critics think “me too” drugs provide no new benefits. This destroys that claim because some of these drugs are actually better than the originals. If some are more effective, then “me too” drugs clearly can benefit consumers.
2. This may be an argument against “me too” drugs. Even if banning them frees up money for innovative drugs, that doesn’t undermine the editorial’s narrow conclusion that “me too” drugs can benefit consumers.
3. How much money pharmaceutical companies make says nothing about whether consumers benefit. Corporate profits and consumer welfare aren’t the same thing.
4. This is another potential downside of “me too” drugs. But the editorial only claims they can benefit consumers, not that they’re always socially optimal.
5. Again, this discusses losses to pharmaceutical companies, not benefits to consumers. Companies losing money doesn’t tell us whether consumers gain from lower prices or improved drugs.