In countries in which new-life sustaining drugs cannot be patented, such drugs are sold at widely affordable prices; those same drugs, where patented, command premium prices because the patents shield patent-holding company from competitors. These facts show that future access to new life sustaining drugs can be improved if the practice of granting patents on newly developed life-sustaining drugs were to be abolished everywhere.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

(A) In countries in which life-sustaining drugs cannot be patented, their manufacturer is neverthless a profitable enterprise.

(B) Countries that do not currently grant patents on life-sustaining drugs are, for the most part, countries with large populations.

(C) In some countries specific processes for the manufacture of pharmaceutical drugs can be patented even in cases in which the drugs themselves cannot be patented.

(D) Pharmaceutical companies can afford the research that go into the development of new drugs only if patents allow them to earn high profits.

(E) Countries that grant patents on life-sustaining drugs almost always ban their importation from countries that do not grant such patents.

The facts written here shows that the future access to new life sustaining drugs can be improved if the practice of granting patent on newly developed drugs were to be abolished everywhere.

Of the following most seriously weakening argument is

(D) Pharmaceutical companies can afford the research that go into the development of new drugs only if patents allow them to earn high profits.

This answer hits the conclusion right in the sweet spot! Companies need the profit that the patents provide to enable research to create the "future access to new life sustaining drugs" that the author talks about directly the conclusion of the argument.