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.

A
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.
B
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.
C
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.
D
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.
E
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.

3 comments

Essayist: Some researchers criticize British governmental security agencies for not releasing enough information about sightings of unidentified flying objects (UFOs) made by these military and intelligence agencies. Requests for information by civilian researchers are brushed aside. This leads one to suspect that there have been spacecraft sighted near Earth that are extraterrestrial in origin.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The essayist hypothesizes that extraterrestrial spaceships have been spotted near Earth. Why? Because British security agencies don’t release much information about UFO sightings.

Notable Assumptions
The essayist assumes no alternative explanation accounts for the security agencies’ refusal to release information about UFOs. That requires assuming the agencies do, in fact, have information about UFO sightings that they’re withholding.

A
The British government is generally not forthcoming with secure information.
This doesn’t mean the information about UFOs is considered secure—perhaps the government is also not forthcoming with some insecure information. Even if it is secure, this doesn’t advance the argument by making any alternative hypothesis less likely.
B
The British government would withhold information pertaining to UFOs only if it were established that they were from other planets.
This implies the UFOs must be extraterrestrial if the British government is withholding information about them. It rules out the possibility the agencies are keeping silent about sightings of aircraft that might be from Earth.
C
The British government would deny the requests by civilian researchers to have access to data only if this government had something to hide.
This implies the government has something to hide, not that the spacecraft sighted are extraterrestrial. There are many possible reasons the government might want to hide this information that have nothing to do with extraterrestrial spaceships.
D
The British government is less trusting of civilian researchers than it is of military researchers.
This comparison is irrelevant because the essayist doesn’t mention military researchers. Even if the government were particularly mistrustful of civilian researchers, that wouldn't imply they’ve spotted extraterrestrial UFOs.
E
The British government has always attempted to deny the existence of UFOs.
This doesn’t mean their refusal to provide information indicates those UFOs are extraterrestrial. It’s not established whether the security agencies actually have information about UFOs.

6 comments