AA041-没有思路，请各位高人相助

boybebop

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 effeciency, and thus ultimately a loss of manufacturing jobs in the industry."

想了好几遍，还是没有凑够3个攻击点。请教各位啦

jess001

不一定要三个的呀，两个如果写得充分就够了！

Cantaloupe

my opinion: Reasoning Fallacy有

1) faulty cause-and-effect connection between the intensity of the law and the investment in the industry. Other factors influenced the industry discussed should be taken into consideration.

2) The evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that the current law is not strong enough to protect the industry, and how strong the law need to be in order to eliminate the imitation? The arguer doesn't mention it.

3) Non sequitur problem: the decline and loss of jobs in the industry don't necessarily follow the less investment ... The innovative design, which is not easily to be copied, will help the company win the market finally.

你的2个观点怎么写的？讨论一下，互相借鉴。

sallyruru

多谢斑竹~