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 argument stresses that in absence of stronger law that protects new kinds of home-security systems from being copied and sold by imitators, manufacturers will cut back investment. This investment cut will lead to decline not only in product quality and
marketability, but also in production efficiency, and thus ultimately a loss of manufacturing jobs in the industry. Therefore, government needs to enact stronger laws.
While doing so, though the argument exhibits some logic, but it also suffers from many flaws. Some of the flaws in the reasoning are listed below:
Firstly, the argument states that stronger laws will encourage investment and that absence of stronger laws will stop new kinds of home-security systems from being copied and sold by imitators. While doing so, the argument displays an example of leap of faith. It assumes, without any evidence or data to support its claim, that enactment of stronger laws protecting new kinds of home-security systems from being copied and sold by imitators are the sole remedy for the problem. For example, the new kinds of home-security systems' unique features may make it difficult for imitators to copy and sell new kinds of home-security systems. Thus, enactment of law, cannot be touted as the sole remedy for the problem.
Secondly, while elaborating the effects of investment cut, the argument incorrectly assumes that these effects cannot be overcome by any other solution. For example, technological innovation may compensate for investment cut and may prevent these undesirable outcomes. However, the argument fails to take the alternatives into account and hence is lopsided.
Finally, argument talks about the investment cut, but fails to take complex market forces into account. It ignores the forces of demand and supply and places burden of protection solely on the regulator. For example, the demand for new kinds of home-security systems may be very high and consumers may be ready to pay premium price to fund research for innovation that will result in unique features stopping imitators from copying the system. In this manner, the government may not be needed to pass stronger laws.
Thus, it can be clearly seen the argument is not balanced. However, if abovementioned data and information is explored, argument can be rendered wholesome.
"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 argument stresses that in absence of stronger law that protects new kinds of home-security systems from being copied and sold by imitators, manufacturers will cut back investment. This investment cut will lead to decline not only in product quality and
marketability, but also in production efficiency, and thus ultimately a loss of manufacturing jobs in the industry. Therefore, government needs to enact stronger laws.
While doing so, though the argument exhibits some logic, but it also suffers from many flaws. Some of the flaws in the reasoning are listed below:
Firstly, the argument states that stronger laws will encourage investment and that absence of stronger laws will stop new kinds of home-security systems from being copied and sold by imitators. While doing so, the argument displays an example of leap of faith. It assumes, without any evidence or data to support its claim, that enactment of stronger laws protecting new kinds of home-security systems from being copied and sold by imitators are the sole remedy for the problem. For example, the new kinds of home-security systems' unique features may make it difficult for imitators to copy and sell new kinds of home-security systems. Thus, enactment of law, cannot be touted as the sole remedy for the problem.
Secondly, while elaborating the effects of investment cut, the argument incorrectly assumes that these effects cannot be overcome by any other solution. For example, technological innovation may compensate for investment cut and may prevent these undesirable outcomes. However, the argument fails to take the alternatives into account and hence is lopsided.
Finally, argument talks about the investment cut, but fails to take complex market forces into account. It ignores the forces of demand and supply and places burden of protection solely on the regulator. For example, the demand for new kinds of home-security systems may be very high and consumers may be ready to pay premium price to fund research for innovation that will result in unique features stopping imitators from copying the system. In this manner, the government may not be needed to pass stronger laws.
Thus, it can be clearly seen the argument is not balanced. However, if abovementioned data and information is explored, argument can be rendered wholesome.
