智课网gmat名师私人定制700全程范文.pdfVIP

GMAT 写作题库范文赏析 41. 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 . 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 ultima y a loss of manufacturing jobs in the industry.” The author asserts that stricter laws are necessary to protect new forms of home security systems from being replicated and sold by imitators so that legitimate distributors will not suffer an eventual loss of manufacturing jobs within the industry. This conclusion uses the fo llowing reasoning: Under the protection of stricter laws, manufacturers will invest in develo new home security products and naturally; without such protection, manufacturers will hesitate to invest and thus stagnate an industry. If manufacturers hold back on investing, then a decline in product quality, as well as in production efficiency, will occur. This, then, will cause the predicted stangnation of the industry and loss of industry jobs. However, this reasoning is unconv ing for multiple reasons. Firstly, the author makes the assumption that cuirrent copyright, patent and trade secret laws are not sufficient for protecting home security system design. But the author fails to ex in for what reason these laws do not provide sufficient protection, nor does the author offer any evidence to show that this is the case. Secondly, the argument relies on the assumptions that