"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."
The author states that stronger laws on the creation of home-security systems will protect companies from having imitators copy and sell their product; if such laws are in place, companies will "naturally" invest in development of new products and technology. The author omits concerns that must be addressed in order to substantiate the argument. This does not constitute as a logical argument and there is no evidence to support the authors claim.
First, if stronger laws are not created, the author believes that the home security system companies will not naturally invest in new developments and production, but if there is an increase in imitators, would it not mean that companies would be more willing to invest capital to ensure they are protecting their products? If companies increased capital they would directly impact, in a positive way, jobs, and efficiency by ensuring they remain competitive. In addition, what evidence is there to support that the imitator's sales are having a negative impact on these companies where home security systems originated from? If the author would be able to provide evidence that imitators would negatively affect the market with increased imitations being bought and show sales within home security and as a whole, the argument would be much clearer and you could draw more evidence to support the authors claim.
Secondly, would more people be willing to buy an imitation of the home security system when it comes to protecting themselves or are these imitators only a blimp on the radar in the market? There is no logic or evidence to connect or correlate the author's argument to draw from. If the author could show that these imitators are having a negative impact on the companies sales and productivity, then it would be a much clearer argument with supporting proof.
Finally, the argument fails to address concerns and provide support, or proof, that stronger protection laws will allow companies to naturally invest in development and new technology. If the author could have provided some sort of proof, such as sales as a whole in the industry, along with the imitators dent in that it would make a much stronger argument.
The author states that stronger laws on the creation of home-security systems will protect companies from having imitators copy and sell their product; if such laws are in place, companies will "naturally" invest in development of new products and technology. The author omits concerns that must be addressed in order to substantiate the argument. This does not constitute as a logical argument and there is no evidence to support the authors claim.
First, if stronger laws are not created, the author believes that the home security system companies will not naturally invest in new developments and production, but if there is an increase in imitators, would it not mean that companies would be more willing to invest capital to ensure they are protecting their products? If companies increased capital they would directly impact, in a positive way, jobs, and efficiency by ensuring they remain competitive. In addition, what evidence is there to support that the imitator's sales are having a negative impact on these companies where home security systems originated from? If the author would be able to provide evidence that imitators would negatively affect the market with increased imitations being bought and show sales within home security and as a whole, the argument would be much clearer and you could draw more evidence to support the authors claim.
Secondly, would more people be willing to buy an imitation of the home security system when it comes to protecting themselves or are these imitators only a blimp on the radar in the market? There is no logic or evidence to connect or correlate the author's argument to draw from. If the author could show that these imitators are having a negative impact on the companies sales and productivity, then it would be a much clearer argument with supporting proof.
Finally, the argument fails to address concerns and provide support, or proof, that stronger protection laws will allow companies to naturally invest in development and new technology. If the author could have provided some sort of proof, such as sales as a whole in the industry, along with the imitators dent in that it would make a much stronger argument.
