The author of this article warns that stronger laws are needed to protect new kinds of home security systems from being copied and sold by imitators in order to prevent an eventual loss of manufacturing jobs within the industry. This conclusion is based on the following chain of reasoning: With the protection of stronger laws, manufacturers will naturallyinvest in the development of new home security products and production technologies, whereas without such protection, manufacturers will cut back on investment. If manufacturers cut back on investment, then a decline in product quality and marketability, as well as in production efficiency, will result. This, in turn, will cause the predicted loss of industry jobs. This line of reasoning is unconvincing for several reasons.
To begin with, the author assumes that existing copyright, patent and trade secret laws are inadequate to protect home security system design. But the author never explains why these laws dont offer sufficient protection, nor does he offer any evidence to show that this is the case.
Secondly, the argument depends on the twin assumptions that stronger legal protection will encourage manufacturers to invest in home security-system production, while the absence of strong legal protection will have the opposite effect. The author fails to provide any evidence or reasons for accepting these assumptions about cause-and-effect connections between the law and what happens in the marketplace.
Moreover, both of these assumptions can be challenged. It is possible that stronger protections would not greatly affect industry investment or jobs overall, but would instead help to determine which companies invested heavily and, therefore, provided the jobs. For instance, a less-restricted market might foster investment and competition among smaller companies, whereas stronger legal protections might encourage market domination by fewer, larger companies.
In conclusion, I do not find this argument compelling. The author must provide evidence that home security system designs are not being adequately, protected by current patent, copyright or trade secret laws. The author must also provide an argument for the assumptions that stronger laws will create more industry jobs overall, while the absence of stronger laws will result in fewer industry jobs. 42.
The author concludes that a postage-stamp price increase is needed to reduce the deterioration of the postal service. The author reasons that raising the price of stamps will accomplish this goal because it will generate more revenue, thereby eliminating the strain on the system. The author further reasons that a price increase will also reduce the volume of mail, thereby improving the morale of postal workers. The reasoning in this argument is problematic in three respects.
The main problem with the argument is the authors mistaken assumption that eliminating strain on the system and improving employee morale are mutually achievable by way of an increase in stamp prices. A price increase will generate more revenue only if the volume of mail remains constant or increases. But, if the volume of mail increases or remains constant, worker morale will not be improved. On the other hand, if the price increase reduces the volume of mail, revenuesmay decrease, and the strain on the system will not be eliminated. Consequently, eliminating the strain on the system and improving the morale of the workers cannot both be achieved by simply raising the price of postage stamps.
Secondly, the authors conclusion that the proposed price increase is necessary to reduce deterioration of the postal service relies on the assumption that no other action would achieve the same result. However, the author provides no evidence to substantiate this assumption. It is possible, for example, that careful cost-cutting measures that do not decrease worker morale might achieve the same goal. It is also possible that other revenue-enhancing measures that do not undermine employee morale are available.
Thirdly, the author unfairly assumes that reducing mail volume and increasing revenues will improve employee morale.This is not necessarily the case. It is possible that employee morale is materially improved only by other means, and that additional revenues will not be used in ways that improve morale. It is also possible that a decrease in mail volume will result in a reduction of the size of the labor force, regardless of revenues, which in turn might undermine morale.
In conclusion, the authors proposed solution to the problem of the deterioration of the postal service will not work. Raising postage-stamp prices cannot bring about both of the outcomes the author identifies as being necessary to solve the problem. Before we can accept the argument, the author must modify the proposal accordingly and must provide more information about the relationship between employee morale and mail volume.