PrepTest 134

Incorrect. This answer doesn't tie into the differences between the countries, so it doesn't justify the conclusion based on the Journalist's premises.

Incorrect. The current practice is justified by this principle—those poorer nations must have some people who cannot afford this medication, and the pharmaceutical companies are expending some of their resources to help them out.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen (Principle)

Stimulus Summary:
A nation with a low average income may have a big middle class, and a rich nation may have a lot of poorer citizens, so selling drugs for more in the latter nations and less in the former is unjustified.

Answer Anticipation:
This Strengthen (Principle) question has an opposing point and a conclusion that highlights the Journalist's opinion of that opposing point, so we need to start by defining what that conclusion means. It refers to a practice mentioned by the opposing point, and calls it unjustified, so the Journalist believes that the disparate costs of pharmaceuticals in the two nations is unjustified.

Why? This is where we leave the opposing point behind and look at the Journalist's premises. There, she states that the issue is that there could be plenty of people who can afford the medicine in the poorer countries, and plenty of people who can't afford the medicine in the richer countries.

Therefore, in order to justify this conclusion, we need to connect those details/that comparison to the conclusion that the practice is unjustified.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights the reasoning of the Journalist. She focuses not on nationality but need—some in poorer countries don't have need and thus don't need help; some in richer nations do have need and thus do need help. If deserved consideration is based on need, then a practice that doesn't take need into account is unjustified, thus justifying the argument's conclusion.

Key Takeaway:
First, when a conclusion refers back to a concept in an opposing point, rephrase that conclusion to show what the author means. Second, Strengthen (Principle) questions are about justifying the judgment in the author's conclusion based on the details of the scenario described. When there's an opposing point, focus on the details that the author discusses, not those discussed in the opposing point.

Incorrect. The stimulus is about pharmaceutical pricing, not health care generally.

Incorrect. This comparison is out of scope of the argument, which isn't about the relative unfairness of health care and wealth inequality, but rather a certain practice of pricing drugs at certain levels.