Stronger laws are needed to protect new kinds of home-security systems

Sajjad1994

Hi Sajjad, would appreciate if you could get the following essay graded.

Thanks

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.”

The author of an article, published in a trade publication suggests that, stringent laws are required to discourage imitation of new kinds of home security systems. He claims that such laws will naturally motivate manufacturers to enhance investment in the development of new home security products and production technologies. Whereas, in the absence of strict laws, manufacturers will cut back investment, leading to decline not only in product quality and marketability but also in production efficiency and manufacturing jobs. Stated in this way, the argument manipulates facts and conveys a distorted view of the situation. The argument relies on assumptions, for which evidence is not provided. The argument is rather unconvincing, given the obvious flaws.

First, the argument states that the copying of new home security products is hurting the relevant industry. However, the argument does not elaborate on what type of imitation is being done. For instance, there could be a possibility that new entrepreneurs are trying to develop technologically advanced home security products and such efforts might come across as imitation. Moreover, there is no information about any patent infringement being done by other manufacturers. Hence, unless any specific information is made available about the kind of imitation as claimed, it is not possible to validate the argument.

Second, the argument readily assumes that strict laws are the only measure to contain copying and imitation of home security products. There could be other ways to tackle this problem such as patenting a new technology, developing highly advanced technological products, which are impossible to be copied, enhancing awareness among the customers about the genuine and fake products through advertisements etc.

Last but not the least, the argument warns that if stringent laws are not formed, then manufacturers will cease investing in developing new products, thereby causing decline in product quality, marketability, production efficiency, and ultimately jobs. This statement is a stretch and not substantiated in any way. There are various other factors, which may cause pull back of investment by manufacturers such as decline in demand of such products, decline in profitability, increase in competition etc. Hence, unless other factors are analysed, the argument holds no water.

Thus, the argument has several glaring logical discrepancies. It started on a sound premise but lacked necessary data to bolster its reasoning. If the argument had drawn upon imperative information and analyses of other factors as mentioned above and thereby plugged holes in the reasoning, it would have been far sounder on the whole.

Good Luck

Kindly review. Thanks.

The author suggests that stringent laws are required to ensure that new home security systems are protected from imitation. He claims that such laws would encourage manufacturers to invest further in the technology, and this would in turn result in growth of the industry. He also asserts that in the absence of such laws, there would be a decline in the product quality as well as in jobs in this industry. The argument is rather unconvincing and is based on several weak assumptions.

First, the argument assumes that the laws to protect imitation would encourage the manufacturers to invest more in the development of new technologies. This assumption is not supported by data or statistical evidence to show the correlation between the two. Without sufficient information about the current technologies used by various manufacturers in the industry, it is difficult to gauge the impact of the proposed laws, if any.

Second, the argument asserts that product quality and marketability will decline as a result of reduced investments in the development of home security products and production technologies. Again, there is no data to substantiate this claim. Also, it seems unreasonable to assume that the product quality, marketability and production efficiency will drop from current levels solely due to decline in investment. There are various factors that impact each of these parameters.

Furthermore, the argument does not elaborate on the copying and imitation being done in the industry. It is important to understand the entry barriers in the industry, the ease by which technology can be copied and the consumer perception about original brands and imitator brands. This information is useful to determine the impact of imitation of products in the home security systems industry.

Thus, the author presents a weak argument based on unsubstantiated claims. The lack of relevant data and statistical evidence makes the argument weak. In order to strengthen the argument, author should include information and past data of key manufacturers and depict a clear correlation between protection of products from imitation and the investment in technology development in the given industry.

Can someone please help me rate my response and guide me where can I improve


Prompt:
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 you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.


Response-
The argument presented above states that there is a need for stronger laws in order to protect new kinds of home security systems from being copied and being sold by imitators. The argument further goes on stating that if the laws are implemented, manufacturers will increase their investment in the development and production of new technology. It is also stated that if the laws are not implemented the manufacturers will cut back on investments that will result in a decline in both the quality of the product as well as the marketability. This will further go on to impact the manufacturing jobs in the industry. This argument is based on a lot of assumptions and flaws, which make the argument unconvincing.

To begin with, the argument assumes that the current laws, which are in place are not sufficient to protect the new kinds of home-security systems and there is a need to make stronger laws. The argument provides no reasoning as to why the laws that are currently in place are not sufficient enough. There is also no data provided as to how impactful the stronger laws that are required to be made will be. There is a possibility that the new laws that will be implemented might also not be sufficient enough and the problem infringement might occur even after placing the stronger laws.

Secondly, the argument assumes that the protection from the laws will lead to manufacturers investing more in the development of new home-security products and production technologies, without which the manufacturers will cut back on the investment. This assumption by the author is not supported by any statistical data. There is no substantiated proof that increasing the investment will lead to development of better and more efficient products. There is a possibility that the investments made in the research and development of these products might not lead to an equivalent increase or improvement in the existing technology of the products.

Last but not the least, the argument assumes that cuts in investments will lead to decline in product quality as well as marketability that will ultimately lead to a loss in manufacturing jobs in the industry. The author of this argument fails to elaborate on the situation of current investments being made in the industry. The possibility of manufacturers over investing in the industry is quite high which the argument fails to identify. The author also does not provide any data to substantiate his claim that the cuts in investment will lead to decline in the quality and marketing of these products.

Thus, we can conclude that the author presents a weak and unsubstantiated argument in front of us. This argument does not only lack relevant data but there are major gaps in the reasoning as well that make the argument weak and unconvincing. To strengthen the argument, the author should provide relevant data from past that shows correlation between protection of products from imitation and the investment in technology development in the given industry.