Examkin

Question

Difficulty: HardIdentifying Premises and Evidence

Although bio-pharmaceutical firms frequently cite high research and development expenditures to justify extended patent protections on new therapies, recent regulatory audits reveal that over 60 percent of major drug approvals in the last decade relied primarily on foundational science funded by public research institutions. Consequently, extending private patent monopolies beyond current durations fails to incentivize genuine innovation. Because private investment focuses disproportionately on minor modifications of existing formulas rather than high-risk breakthroughs, policy makers should instead reallocate patent extensions toward firms that directly fund early-stage discovery.

In the argument given, which of the following statements functions as evidence directly offered to support the author's intermediate claim that extending private patent monopolies fails to incentivize genuine innovation?

  1. Over 60 percent of major drug approvals in the last decade relied primarily on foundational science funded by public research institutions.Answer
  2. B
    Bio-pharmaceutical firms frequently cite high research and development expenditures to justify extended patent protections on new therapies.
  3. C
    Extending private patent monopolies beyond current durations fails to incentivize genuine innovation.
  4. D
    Policy makers should reallocate patent extensions toward firms that directly fund early-stage discovery.
  5. E
    Public research institutions receive insufficient funding from federal regulatory grants.

Answer

The statement detailing that over 60 percent of major drug approvals relied on publicly funded foundational science serves as the direct empirical premise supporting the author's intermediate claim.
The correct option correctly identifies the empirical finding from regulatory audits (that over 60 percent of major approvals relied on public research) as the factual premise used to support the author's claim that private patent extensions fail to foster genuine innovation.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Deconstruct the argument structure into core components.
Identified the opposing background claim (industry R&D spending claims), empirical evidence (60% public science reliance), intermediate conclusion (extending monopolies fails to incentivize innovation), additional premise (private focus on minor modifications), and main conclusion (reallocating patent extensions).
Isolating structural roles is necessary to distinguish factual premises from conclusions and context.
2
Locate the target claim specified in the question stem.
The target claim is the intermediate conclusion: 'extending private patent monopolies beyond current durations fails to incentivize genuine innovation.'
The question asks specifically for the premise supporting this intermediate claim.
3
Evaluate which option provides the factual premise supporting that intermediate claim.
The audit findings regarding 60 percent of major approvals relying on public research provide the factual evidence showing that private patents are not driving the foundational innovation.
This empirical finding directly justifies the sub-conclusion regarding the failure of extended private monopolies to incentivize genuine innovation.

Key Concept

Identifying Premises and Evidence
Estimated Time:2m 0s
Rate this question

Topics

Identifying Premises and Evidence

More questions from this topic