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.
The author’s argument seems to assume that a manufacturer who makes home-security systems will somehow be unable to invest resources into developing new products due to the possibility of theft by imitators. The reasoning seems plausible enough at first glance, but upon further examination, the argument loses considerable credibility
First, the author seems to assume that the manufacturer does not already invest heavily in research and development, and that additional product development, such as development of home-security systems, is not in the company’s interests. If such an assumption is true, then the manufacturer’s financial investment in new product development would be reduced. This assumption seems unlikely, so there would have to be some reason for believing that the manufacture of home-security systems is not already a key business for the company. If the company does invest in new product development, then it stands to reason that it would want to protect that investment from imitators. Second, the author assumes that the manufacturer desires to protect its investment in product development from imitators by enacting stronger laws. If true, then the manufacturer itself would have no problem investing in development of new products, since it would not suffer any losses from theft. If the company does have a problem investing in new product development, then the author’s reasoning becomes moot. Therefore, it seems more reasonable to conclude that the company does not desire to protect its investment in product development, as this would require it to change its own behavior. Lastly, if the author’s argument were true, then the manufacturer would have no trouble investing resources into development of new products, since there would be no threat of theft. However, there are numerous examples of successful manufacturers that have created successful products without any such protection. The automobile industry, for example, has developed and marketed numerous successful products, including automobiles, trucks, and motorcycles, without patents or extensive legal protection. Perhaps, then, the company’s investment in development of new products is not based on fear of losing to imitators, but rather on a desire to meet consumer demands for new and innovative products
In conclusion, the author’s assertion that stronger laws are needed to protect the development of new home-security systems from imitators is flawed, as the manufacturer’s investment in development of new products is not undermined by the threat of theft, and, therefore, stronger laws are not necessary to protect the investment.