LSAT 151 – Section 3 – Question 03

LSAT 151 - Section 3 - Question 03

September 2018

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Target time: 0:50

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT151 S3 Q03
+LR
Point at issue: disagree +Disagr
Value Judgment +ValJudg
A
0%
148
B
97%
161
C
0%
153
D
1%
155
E
1%
156
120
120
128
 +Easiest 146.292 +SubsectionMedium

Dario: The government should continue to grant patents for all new drug compounds. Patents promote innovation by rewarding pharmaceutical companies for undertaking the costly research needed to develop new drugs.

Cynthia: Promoting innovation is certainly important. For this reason, patents should be granted only for truly innovative drugs, not for minor variants of previously existing drugs. Since it is much less expensive to tweak an existing drug than to develop a wholly new one, pharmaceutical companies tend to focus primarily on the cheaper alternative.

Speaker 1 Summary
Dario says that patents should be granted for all new drugs. Why? Because patents promote innovation. Dario supports this major premise by explaining that patents reward pharmaceutical companies for spending money on researching new drugs.

Speaker 2 Summary
Cynthia thinks that patents should only be granted for “truly innovative” new drugs, not absolutely all new drugs. Cynthia also supports this proposal by saying it will promote innovation. So how does limiting patents help innovation? Because it would deter companies from just developing variations on existing drugs, which is cheaper than coming up with truly new drugs.

Objective
We’re looking for a point of disagreement. Dario and Cynthia disagree about whether absolutely all new drug developments should be rewarded with patents.

A
pharmaceutical companies should be rewarded for pursuing innovation
Both Dario and Cynthia agree with this. Both speakers want to encourage innovation by offering pharmaceutical companies rewards, they just disagree on what counts as innovation.
B
patents should be granted for all drug compounds
Dario agrees with this, but Cynthia disagrees: here’s the point of disagreement. This claim is Dario’s main conclusion. Cynthia’s conclusion, however, is that only certain drug compounds should get patents.
C
developing truly innovative drugs is costly
Both speakers agree that this is true. Dario talks about the “costly” research needed to develop any new drugs, and Cynthia says that varying existing drugs is “much less expensive” than innovative drugs (meaning innovation is much more expensive).
D
pharmaceutical companies have an incentive to create minor variants of existing drugs
Cynthia agrees with this, but Dario doesn’t express an opinion about minor variants specifically. Dario groups all sorts of new drugs together, and never distinguishes between minor variants and totally new drugs.
E
drug patents can promote innovation
Both speakers agree with this claim. Both Dario and Cynthia think that awarding patents can promote innovation, they just disagree about when precisely the decision to award patents should be made.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 151 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply