GMAT® arguement essay: Stronger laws are needed to protect new kinds of home...

[Blackswallow]

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 gave the conclusion that government should have stronger law to protect new kind of home security system from being copied and sold by imitator. The author argue that without that law, the manufacturer will cut back on investment on developing that kind of product, result in declining not only on product quality, marketability and product efficiency, therefore bring out loss of manufacturing jobs in the industry. This argument is somewhere problematical for some reason

First, there is no specific evidence to support to the argument that without stronger protecting laws, the manufacture will cut back investment on the product. So far, with the current law, the investors still spend money on the product and there is nothing to prove that they will stop doing that. Moreover, as an investor, usually you will consider a lot of factors such as the command of the product in the market, the profit you will get from the product before making the decision rather on looking at the protecting law of the product. In some case, the protecting law has some impact but definitely it is not the dominated factor.

Second, even if the manufacture will cut back the fund, the argument that this will bring out a corresponding decline in product quality, product marketability and product efficiency is unconvincing. Normally, when the demand of a product decrease or the product already has its reputation on market, the investor can start getting benefit and stop funding for it and still do not hurt its quality or efficiency, or cause losing job in the product industry. Therefore, the assumption from the author that the lack of stronger protection for security system will have negative influence on the product itself and its market should be put in question

In conclusion, the author’s argument is not reasonable. The author should give evidence to prove that the investor will stop funding for home security system if the government does not issue a stronger protection law and the absence of such law will actually have bad effect on the product industry.

Please review my essay and tell me your idea. Thanks so much

[Kitosdad]

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 /gave/COMES TO/ARRIVES AT/ the conclusion that governmentD should have stronger lawS to protect new /kindS/TYPES/ of home security systemS from being copied and sold by imitatorS. The author argueS that without that law, the manufacturer will cut back on HIS investment IN developing that kind of product, resultING in declining(,) not only on product quality, marketability and product efficiency, therefore bringING ABout THE loss of MANY manufacturing jobs in the industry. This argument is somewhere problematical for some reason

First, there is no specific evidence to support to the HIS argument that without stronger protecting laws, the manufacture will cut back ON investment IN the product. So far, with the current lawS, the investors still /spend money on/PURCHASE/ the product and there is nothing to prove that they will stop doing that. Moreover, as an investor, usually you will usually consider a lot of factors(,) such as the command FOR the product in the market, AND the profit you will get from the product before making the decision(,) rather THAN looking at the protecting law of the product. In some caseS, the protecting law DOES HAVE some impact(,) but definitely it is not the dominatING factor.

Second, even if the manufacture DID cut back the fund, the argument that this will bring out a corresponding decline in product quality, product marketability and product efficiency is unconvincing. Normally, when the demand FOR a product decreaseS or the product already has its reputation on market, the investor can start getting benefit and stop funding for it(,) and still do not hurt its quality or efficiency, or cause A LOSS OF jobS in the product industry. Therefore, the assumption from the author that the lack of stronger protection for security systemS will have negative influenceS on the product itself and its market should be put inTO question

In conclusion, the author’s argument is not reasonable. The author should give evidence to prove that the investor will stop funding for home security systemS if the government does not issue a stronger protectiVE lawS(,) and the absence of such lawS will actually have A VERY bad effect on the product industry.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Hello BS. Your work is pretty good. It is a sensible counter-argument and I agree
with you. You are certainly getter better. Congratulations.

Kitos. 8.5/10
_________________
Keep it simple ... Keep it interesting.