Examkin

Question

Difficulty: MediumStatement and Arguments

Local authorities are debating measures to enhance public safety in urban districts. Consider the following proposed policy and the subsequent arguments:

Policy Proposal: Should the city administration mandate the closure of all retail and commercial establishments by 8:00 PM to curb the rising incidence of nighttime street crime?

Argument I: No, implementing such an early closure will severely disrupt the local economy, lead to massive job losses in the service sector, and fails to address the actual underlying socio-economic causes of criminal behavior.
Argument II: Yes, street crimes happen exclusively because people are visiting markets after dark, so forcing businesses to close early will completely eradicate all illegal activities in the city.

Based on logical reasoning principles, which of the following best evaluates the strength of the given arguments?

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

Answer

The correct evaluation is that only the first argument is strong, as it provides a realistic and multi-faceted critique of the policy's consequences.
The option stating that only the first argument is strong is correct. Argument I provides a nuanced, realistic assessment of the policy's socio-economic impact while correctly pointing out that the measure does not target the actual root causes of crime. This makes it substantial and logically robust. In contrast, Argument II relies on absolute generalizations ('exclusively', 'completely eradicate') which are practically impossible and logically unsound, rendering it a weak argument.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the policy proposal and its primary objective.
The proposal aims to reduce nighttime crime by closing commercial establishments early (by 8:00 PM).
Understanding the premise is required to evaluate whether the arguments directly and logically address the action and its outcomes.
2
Evaluate the logical strength and realism of Argument I.
Argument I identifies highly probable negative outcomes (economic disruption, job losses) and correctly points out that the policy acts as a superficial fix rather than addressing root causes.
A strong argument must relate directly to the statement and provide substantial, non-trivial reasoning.
3
Evaluate the logical strength and realism of Argument II.
Argument II relies on extreme absolute terms ('exclusively', 'completely eradicate', 'all illegal activities'). It makes a logically flawed assumption that all crime stems solely from open markets.
Arguments that rely on sweeping generalizations, absolute certainties without proof, or extreme oversimplifications are classified as weak.
4
Synthesize the evaluations to select the correct conclusion.
Since only the first argument is logically sound and practically realistic, the correct conclusion is that only Argument I is strong.
This aligns with standard logical reasoning frameworks for policy evaluation.

Key Concept

Evaluating the logical validity, realism, and direct relevance of supporting and opposing arguments regarding administrative policies.
Rate this question

Topics

Statement and Arguments

More questions from this topic