One of my students in the post graduate design law classwhich I teach has sent me an abstract of their proposed paper, which contains the following -

<<Apart from the sophistry surrounding characterisation as a work of artistic craftsmanship, the existence of such a category introduces a de facto criteria of artistic achievement into judicial evaluation which obviates against the requirement that copyright protection should not be based on perceived artistic merit.

This paper recommends a normative shift from current statutory preoccupation with differentiating "art" or "craftsmanship" from "design" to an analysis of industrial purpose. It is suggested that the monopoly or protective tenure extended by copyright law becomes contentious where it subverts the legitimate manufacture of useful articles. It is through the mechanisms of mass market induction that a creative work may be seen to transcend the paradigm of artistic work.>>

Given that it is part of good legal style to write clearly and concisely, how should I respond bearing in mind that the rest of the abstract is in similar style?
jj