41. 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.
听取意见/认真考虑怎么说?
看《绯闻女孩》学口语
《唐顿庄园》里的英式俚语 4
奥斯卡得主获奖后会说什么?
视频:如何交外国朋友
触碰心灵的奥斯卡电影台词
“一切都好,没问题”怎么说?
口语:不祥预兆
新春佳节必备成语贺词
口语:表情符号
电话常用语
春季砍价必备10句
公共场所常用表达
如何用英文“插嘴”?
“昂贵的代价”怎么说?
“别灰心”怎么说?
口语:男士小感冒
口语:做得很好,取得成功
英文聊聊看过的电影
“给自己留条后路”怎么说?
口语:同时做很多事情
日常会话:Yard Work
最常遇到的面试问题
口语:帅呆了,美爆了
童话世界Q版公主箴言
9个短语说说“不厚道”
《唐顿庄园》里的英式俚语 2
公众演讲都有哪些禁忌?
英文给大家“拜个晚年”
“看走眼了”英文咋说?
不限 |
英语教案 |
英语课件 |
英语试题 |
不限 |
不限 |
上册 |
下册 |
不限 |