The following appeared as part of an article in a trade publication.
Stronger laws are needed to protect new kinds of home-security systems from being copied and sold by imitators. With such protection, manufacturers will naturally invest in the development of new home-security products and production technologies. Without stronger laws, therefore, manufacturers will cut back on investment. From this will follow a corresponding decline not only in product quality and marketability, but also in production efficiency, and thus ultimately a loss of manufacturing jobs in the industry.
Discuss how well reasoned... etc.
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 naturally invest 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.
My favorite sport
The Double Ninth Festival
美国顶级高校年度排名 普林斯顿大学再登榜首
世界上最热的地方 达纳基尔大沙漠
高考英语作文范文:我对近视眼的看法
Friend in my heart
The Spring Festival
江西南昌高校报告学生艾滋病例135例 死亡7例
澳大利亚一巨型英国獒犬身长已超过两米
My Hometown
攻克GRE阅读之经典长难句练习1
来华国际学生逐年增加 中国或成第二大留学地
高考英语作文范文:交朋友的准则
中国已批准落实2030年可持续发展议程国别方案
不满狂晒成长照 奥地利18岁女孩将父母告上法庭
400学生为患癌老师打气 齐声歌唱感动千万网友
GRE考生的写作5.5高分经验分享
GRE写作高分的八个小技巧
2016年5月21日GRE阅读机经
My holiday life
这么厉害!捷克男子开自制飞机上下班!
教育部官员称对网络语言要引导规范而不是消灭
高考英语作文范文:谈论计划
教育部发布中考改革意见 我国将试点推行
离婚率上涨的罪魁祸首竟是高房价
男婴飞机上出生 获赠终身免费乘机
政府尝试镇压的语言 新加坡式英语
印尼旅游圣地巴厘岛发生游船爆炸事件
book
英文谚语
不限 |
英语教案 |
英语课件 |
英语试题 |
不限 |
不限 |
上册 |
下册 |
不限 |