Pharmaceutical firms often justify the high prices of innovative therapies by citing extensive research and development expenditures. However, because basic biomedical research is increasingly funded by public grants, private drug manufacturers actually bear a smaller fraction of upfront discovery costs than they claim. Consequently, the commercial risk associated with developing new medications has substantially declined over the past decade. It follows that regulatory authorities should cap the profit margins on treatments that rely heavily on publicly funded foundational science. Critics argue that such caps would disincentivize private investment, but this concern overlooks the fact that patent exclusivity periods already guarantee sufficient returns to attract capital.
In the argument above, the bolded statement plays which of the following roles?
- It is a subsidiary conclusion derived from evidence about public research funding, and it serves as a supporting premise for the author's primary recommendation.Answer
- BIt is the main conclusion of the overall argument, supported by the recommendation to implement regulatory caps on profit margins.
- CIt is a factual background premise presented without logical support to establish the baseline context of the industry.
- DIt is a concession made to critics of profit caps in order to qualify the scope of the author's policy proposal.
- EIt is an unstated underlying assumption that bridges the gap between patent exclusivity periods and investor returns.