ARGUMENT5 求拍，第一次写，请大家使劲拍吧

沧海一粒粟UID: 2675725

TOPIC: ARGUMENT5 - The following appeared in the business section of a newspaper.

"Given that the number of people in our country with some form of arthritis is expected to rise from 40 million to 60 million over the next twenty years, pharmaceutical companies that produce drugs for the treatment of arthritis should be very profitable. Many analysts believe that in ten years Becton Pharmaceuticals, which makes Xenon, the best-selling drug treatment for arthritis, will be the most profitable pharmaceutical company. But the patent on Xenon expires in three years, and other companies will then be able to produce a cheaper version of the drug. Thus, it is more likely that in ten years the most profitable pharmaceutical company will be Perkins Pharmaceuticals, maker of a new drug called Xylan, which clinical studies show is preferred over Xenon by seven out of ten patients suffering from the most extreme cases of arthritis."
WORDS: 615          TIME: 01:15:10          DATE: 2010/3/1 15:15:19

The idea that most arthritis patients will prefer over Xylan appears to be an obvious result with the support of clinical studies about the preference of the drug, Xylan or Xenon, among patients suffering from the most extreme cases of  arthritis. Nevertheless, the conclusion that Perkins Pharmaceuticals (PP) will be the most profitable company in ten years overlooks other factors affecting the profit.
First of all, the fact that the patent of the Becton Pharmaceuticals (BP) expirs in three years does not naturally point out that BP will not receive a profit any more. It is possible that BP would also manufacture the cheaper version of the drug and as a result BP would earn a profit because of its good reputation. In addtion, it might be a possibility that BP would produce a new drug that could be more effective for the treatment of arthritis than any other drug. Until the arguer offers the information of BP's business strategies in the future, I remain unconvinced that BP would not be profitable.
The studies in the argument is also unreliable. When evaluating the evidence of the clinical studies about the use of Xylan, a new drug curing arthritis, one needs to examine how representative the studies are. Could the most extreme arthritis patients represent all the arthritis patients? It might be the case that Xylan only has an effect on the most extreme patients and instead has little, even no, effect on other patients. One also needs to consider how large the sample is. If the number of patients studied is only a small portion, the result might be untenable--perhaps most other patients may prefer Xenon to Xylan. Moreover, one needs to take into account the procedure of the study. Is the question asked in the study misleading? Is the study conducted just by PP? Is the study limited to the arthritis patients of a certain hospital, even the same physician in charge? Alternative explanations could accout for the study results and then could weaken the claim that PP will be the most profitable company in the next ten years.
In additon, even if Xylan is popular among the arthritis patients, however, PP would not necessarily be a tremendously profitable company. After all, profit is determined by revenue and expense. Perhaps the arthritis patients would choose operation instead of drugs as the treatment method; or perhaps the arthritis patients in the survey just express their preference over Xylan and in fact they would not purchase Xylan because they might be highly concerned with the new drug's safety. For that matter, PP would not receive a profit in ten years. What is more, there is no information about the costs involved in manufacturing Xylan in the argument. Common sence informs us that usually producing a new drug needs new process, new equipments and new materials, which contributes to a high cost. Moreover, the arguer fails to consider the existing and potential competitors that would challenge PP's position.
Finally, even assuming that PP would be profitable, the assumption that there are only two mutually exclusive choices, BP or PP, in the competition of becoming the most profitable company is unwarranted. Perhaps in the next ten years many other companies would earn a profit by producing not only newer but also more effective than PP.
In sum, the argument appears logical at first glance, but actually it is unpersuasive. To bolster it the arguer must provide clearer information about the future business strategies of BP and the representativeness of the studies. To better evaluate the conclusion, I need to know PP's business condition. I also need to know what competition PP would face in the next ten years.