Examkin

Question

Difficulty: Very hardStatement and Arguments

Read the given statement and the two arguments that follow.

Statement: Should state governments replace all discretionary human oversight in public procurement with fully automated artificial intelligence decision-making algorithms?

Argument I: Yes, because removing human intervention completely will guarantee absolute corruption-free tender allocation and eliminate administrative delays.
Argument II: No, because algorithm-driven procurement without human oversight can perpetuate historical data biases and lacks the discretionary flexibility required during emergency public relief operations.

Which of the following choices correctly evaluates 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 identifies that only the second argument is strong. The second argument highlights critical administrative drawbacks, such as data bias retention and loss of emergency discretion, which are directly relevant to real-world governance. In contrast, the first argument relies on extreme generalizations and absolute claims ('guarantee absolute corruption-free allocation'), making it logically weak under standard logical reasoning rules.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze Argument I for relevance and logical validity
Argument I relies on extreme phrasing ('guarantee absolute corruption-free tender allocation'). In public policy evaluation, arguments that promise flawless outcomes through radical measures without considering algorithmic vulnerabilities are considered logically weak.
An argument containing absolute claims or extreme assumptions fails the test of practical administrative sound reasoning.
2
Analyze Argument II for relevance and logical validity
Argument II directly addresses realistic operational constraints: automated systems reflect historical training data biases and lack emergency discretionary power essential in civil administration.
Strong arguments in State PSC reasoning must demonstrate clear cause-effect relevance, practical feasibility, and sound policy analysis.
3
Synthesize results to select the matching CSAT evaluation choice
Since Argument I is weak due to extreme assumptions and Argument II is strong due to valid administrative reasoning, only Argument II is strong.
Correct option selection requires matching evaluated argument strengths against standard CSAT response options.

Key Concept

Evaluation of Strong and Weak Arguments in Public Policy
Rate this question

Topics

Statement and Arguments

More questions from this topic