Examkin

Question

Difficulty: HardStatement and Arguments

Read the policy proposition below and evaluate the logical validity of the subsequent arguments.

Proposition: Should the state government enact an absolute prohibition on constructing new commercial infrastructure within a 50-kilometer radius of capital cities in order to decentralize economic growth?

Argument I: Yes, halting urban commercial expansion will directly compel multinational corporations to build facilities in remote villages, thereby instantly resolving both urban congestion and rural poverty.
Argument II: No, implementing such a drastic geographic restriction without proactively developing rural business ecosystems will cause capital flight to competing states, severely diminishing overall state revenue.

Based on logical reasoning principles, which of the following accurately assesses the strength of the given arguments?

  1. A
    Only Argument I is strong
  2. Only Argument II is strongAnswer
  3. C
    Both Argument I and Argument II are strong
  4. D
    Neither Argument I nor Argument II is strong

Answer

Only Argument II is strong
The correct answer accurately identifies that Argument II provides a realistic, structurally sound consequence of the policy (capital flight), whereas Argument I is weak because it relies on extreme, absolute language and highly improbable assumptions about corporate behavior.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the core proposition.
The proposition suggests a complete ban on commercial construction near capital cities to force economic decentralization.
Understanding the policy's goal and mechanism is necessary to evaluate the relevance of the arguments.
2
Evaluate the logical strength of Argument I.
Argument I is weak.
It relies on extreme assumptions ('instantly resolving') and a flawed cause-and-effect link. Banning construction in one area does not guarantee that corporations will move to remote villages; they have other options.
3
Evaluate the logical strength of Argument II.
Argument II is strong.
It presents a logically sound and practically realistic consequence. Capital flight to more favorable states is a direct, substantial counter-effect of enacting extreme geographic restrictions without preparing alternative infrastructure.

Key Concept

Identifying logically sound counter-arguments versus those based on extreme assumptions and disproportionate administrative expectations.
Rate this question

Topics

Statement and Arguments

More questions from this topic