LSAT 108 – Section 2 – Question 19

LSAT 108 - Section 2 - Question 19

February 2000

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

Target time: 0:57

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
PT108 S2 Q19	+LR	Strengthen +Streng	A 91% 167 B 1% 153 C 3% 158 D 0% 145 E 4% 162	130 141 152	+Easier	145.001 +SubsectionEasier

Newspaper editorial: Many pharmaceutical companies develop “me too” drugs, drugs designed to duplicate, more or less, the effect of another company’s product that is already on the market. Some critics object that such development constitutes an unnecessary, redundant use of resources that provides no new benefits to consumers. However, the entry of “me too” drugs into the market can result in a price reduction for the drugs they resemble. Therefore, “me too” drugs can indeed benefit consumers.

Summarize Argument

The editorial argues that copycat “me too” drugs can benefit consumers. Why? Because their presence sometimes reduces the prices of the drugs they resemble.

Notable Assumptions

The editorial assumes consumers can benefit from the price reduction caused by “me too” drugs entering the market. This means assuming the lower prices are enjoyed by end consumers and that they aren’t accompanied by some disadvantage that outweighs the benefit of lower prices.

Some “me too” drugs turn out to be more effective than the drugs they were designed to imitate.

This is another way “me too” drugs can benefit consumers. It rules out the possibility that all “me too” drugs are less effective than the originals.

If “me too” drugs were prohibited, more money would be available for the development of innovative drugs.

This weakens the editorial’s argument because it suggests consumers might benefit in a different way if “me too” drugs were prohibited: from the availability of more innovative drugs.

Pharmaceutical companies often make more money on a “me too” drug than on an original drug.

This doesn’t prevent “me too” drugs from benefitting consumers as well. Pharmaceutical companies might make more money on “me too” drugs simply because the lower price allows more people to purchase them.

If all pharmaceutical companies developed “me too” drugs, fewer innovative drugs would be developed.

The editorial says “[m]any” pharmaceutical companies, not all of them, produce “me too” drugs. Even if fewer innovative drugs were developed, that would disadvantage consumers, so this would weaken the argument.

Some pharmaceutical companies lose money on the development of innovative drugs because of the development by other companies of “me too” drugs.

This disadvantages some pharmaceutical companies, but it doesn’t necessarily benefit consumers. It’s not stated whether losses by the companies that develop innovative drugs translate to savings by consumers.

LSAT 108 – Section 2 – Question 19

LSAT 108 - Section 2 - Question 19

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

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 108 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Leave a Reply Cancel