The conclusion endorsed in the argument is that there will be very little significant technological innovation within the industry, and hence little evolution of architectural styles and design. Several reasons are offered in support of this argument. In the beginning, the author cites the fact that the safety codes are becoming far too strict. In addition, the author argues that as a consequence, there will be little significant technological innovation within the industry, and hence little evolution of architectural styles and design. At first glance , the authors argument seems to be somewhat convincing, however, a close reflection reveals that the conclusion is based on some dubious assumptions and reasoning is biased due to the inadequacy and partiality in the nature of the evidence provided to justify the conclusion. A careful examination would review how groundless this conclusion is.
In the first place, it is highly doubtful that there are causal relationship between the strict regulation and the innovation within the industry. For example, strict rules of advanced technology would obligate all architects and builders to keep up with the latest styles, design and science. As a result, it is imprudent to conclude that whatever strict codes leads to the obstacle to the development of the industry. On the contrary, the tendency would bring profit to the current industry.
In the second place, the author ignores numerous other factors that may have influence on the architects opinion of the methods to prove their ability. For instance, even if the constructions have reached the minimum requirement of the safety codes, to almost patrons, it is considered that the higher quality the buildings are, the more competitive the projects are.
In the third place, there is no sufficient linkage between the little innovation and the strictness of the codes. By only showing the fact that existing conditions is not able to convince us to preview the industry in the future. For example, it is very likely that the new policy would keep up with the step of the taste, requirement and need of the customers. Meanwhile, the architects and the builders would follow the orders not only to become compulsory to the society, but also to enlarge their own benefit.
To conclude, this argument is not persuasive as it stands. Accordingly, it is imprudent for the author to claim that the strict codes will surely impede the development of the construction industry. Only with more convincing evidence could this argument become more than just an emotional appeal.
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2006-10-17 10:17:00
楼主
