A significant social trend in the 20th century was for people to move away from their place of birth in order to access education and work. This gave individuals more opportunities and helped the economy by producing mobility within the workforce. The negative side of this is now being felt as more and more elderly people face the problems of old age without family members nearby to care for them. This has negative effects on the economy as well as on the individual, as more and more state funding for care is needed.
Which one of the following could be drawn as a conclusion of the above passage?
Full explanation
Passage summary : People moving away for work and education boosted opportunities and the economy, but left many elderly without nearby family, increasing care demands and economic costs. So, this is similar to showing two sides of a coin.
Analysis of the given options
Option A : This option accurately captures the essence of the passage --- weighing the positive outcomes of workforce mobility against its negative consequences for the elderly and the economy.
Option B : The passage doesn't mention what elderly people expect.
Option C : The passage doesn't make a recommendation about what people should do. It describes a trend and its consequences but stops short of advising people to stay near home.
Option D : The passage highlights a problem, not a policy solution.
Option E : Again, the passage notes a social consequence but doesn't prescribe personal priorities or suggest that people ought to choose family care over career opportunities.
1. (Logical reasoning) Any company that wishes to sell a new drug must provide the government with details of research about its safety and possible side effects. At present, this information is confidential, but there are plans to make it available to the public. While patients are surely entitled to more information about the drugs they are prescribed, this will also inevitably make public vital details about the ingredients of certain drugs and how they are manufactured. Drug companies are naturally reluctant to release this information to their competitors. Therefore, through fear of imitators, drug companies will no longer introduce new and important drugs into the country.
Which one of the following, if true, would most weaken the above argument?
A. There are sufficient drugs already on the market and so there is no necessity to introduce new ones.
B. The drug industry is a very competitive business and secrecy is vital if companies are to survive.
C. People may be reluctant to use certain drugs when they have fuller information about them.
D. People are better informed about the side effects of drugs abroad than they are in this country.
E. Strong patent laws prevent companies from using the information to create rival drugs.
Answer : E. Strong patent laws prevent companies from using the information to create rival drugs
Detailed explanation :
Passage summary : Plans to make drug safety research public might scare companies from launching new drugs due to fear of competitors copying vital details.
Conclusion: Drug companies won't introduce new important drugs because of fear of imitators if information is made public.
Analysis of the given options
Option A : Irrelevant --- doesn't address fear of imitation or the argument's reasoning.
Option B : Strengthens the argument by supporting the idea that disclosure would be risky.
Option C : Irrelevant to companies' fear of competitors copying their products.
Option D : Not relevant to imitation fears or whether companies would stop introducing drugs.
Option E : This directly weakens the fear of imitation. If patent laws protect new drugs, competitors can't legally copy them even with access to information --- so companies wouldn't need to withhold new drugs from the market.