Argument 5 严重求拍. 大谢！！！

jaymcoinUID: 2769272

5.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."


In this argument, the arguer concludes that Perkins Pharmaceutical, maker of Xylan, will be the most profitable pharmaceutical company in ten years. To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer points out 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. In addition, the arguer assumes that Becton Pharmaceuticals, owner of Xenon, which is the best-selling drug treatment for arthritis, will not be as profitable as before. This argument is problematic for two reasons.

The major problem of the argument is the insufficient evidence assumption that the benefit of Becton will decline due to the expiration of patent on Xenon and other companies will be able to produce a cheaper version of this drug. First, the arguer fails to rule out the possibility that Xenon still will be the best selling as well as the most profitable drug treatment for arthritis. The popularity of Xenon helps Becton to develop a faithful group of customer which is the most effective living advertisement to keep the market and provides evidence to believe Becton has the chance to condense the manufacturing cost before the expiration of patent. Second, the arguer fails to take into account the possible situation that the patent not only help Becton make a considerable profits but also motivate Becton the ability and desire to research new drug treatment for arthritis. Third the arguer unfairly assumes that the lower price of Xenon made by other companies, whether it will come true is open to doubt too, will take up Becton’s market and make more benefit than Becton. Common sense tells us that not the price but the effect is the major factor when we choose which drug to use.

Another point worth considering is the arguer’s hasty generalization. Even if Becton will not the most profitable pharmaceutical company in ten years, which is of course, an unwarranted assumption, it does not follow that Perkins will be more profitable pharmaceutical company. We are informed that seven out of ten patients suffering from the most extreme cases of arthritis prefer Xylan than Xenon, but the arguer fails to rule out the possibility that there still exists a drug treatment for arthritis belonging to other company is more popular to extreme serious patients. Moreover the most serious patients’ choice does not necessary imply the overall patients’ choice.

In summary, the conclusion reached in this argument is invalid and misleading. To strengthen the argument, the arguer would have to provide evidence that Xylan will be the best-selling drug treatment for arthritis instead of other drug. To better evaluate the argument, we would need more information about the manufacturing cost and sales price of Xylan to convince public that Perkins will the most profitable pharmaceutical company in ten years.