PT105.S2.Q2 > Question

SECTION 1 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26

SECTION 2 · lr

SECTION 3 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7

PASSAGE 2

Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14

PASSAGE 3

Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21

PASSAGE 4

Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26

SECTION 4 · lr

The director argues that development costs for the new government-requested vaccine should be subsidized. Why? Because vaccines are less likely to be profitable than other pharmaceutical products. This is because vaccines only need to be administered once, and thus sell less than products administered many times.

The director assumes that if the government requests a product, that product should be subsidized to account for the missed profit the company would make from a more marketable product. The director also assumes that the one-time nature of the vaccine wouldn’t be mitigated by its price or some factor increasing sales.

If the vaccines are administered more widely than most drugs, then those sales would mitigate the fact vaccines are only administered once per patient. This suggests the vaccine will be profitable, weakening the director’s argument.

In other words, if we let people get sick instead of vaccinating them, the pharmaceutical company could sell more medication. This makes the impact of vaccines on profits even more direct, which strengthens the argument.

The argument is specifically about the profitability of vaccines versus other medications, so the existence of a third product category isn't relevant.

Presumably those other companies' directors would make the same argument as the Rexx director. This doesn't give us any reason to doubt the argument; it's just irrelevant.

The manufacturing company still pays the production and marketing costs, which are the costs the director thinks should be subsidized. This doesn’t give us any reason to think otherwise, meaning it doesn't weaken.

PrepTest 105 - Section 2 - Question 2

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action