Examkin

Question

Difficulty: HardStatement and Arguments

Context: Public resource allocation often involves competing priorities that require systemic evaluation.

Statement: Should the state government drastically cut financial support for higher education universities in order to fully finance universal primary schooling in underdeveloped regions?

Argument: No; severely defunding higher education compromises advanced pedagogical research and teacher training, which inherently chokes the supply of qualified educators required to make the primary schooling initiative successful.

Assertion: The argument provided above qualifies as a logically 'strong' argument.

Answer: Answer

Answer

True. The argument is logically strong.
The argument is robust and directly addresses the practical feasibility of the policy. In logical reasoning, a 'strong' argument provides a realistic, non-trivial reason why an action should or should not be taken. Here, the argument correctly identifies a systemic dependency: primary education relies heavily on the output of higher education (qualified teachers and educational administrators). By logically proving that the policy would eventually choke the human resources needed for its own success, the argument relies on impeccable systemic logic and definitively qualifies as 'strong'.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the proposed policy action in the statement.
The policy proposes defunding universities to completely fund primary schools.
Understanding the exact administrative trade-off is required to evaluate the relevance of the argument.
2
Examine the causal reasoning presented in the argument.
The argument establishes that cutting university funds degrades teacher training, which consequently results in a lack of qualified teachers for primary schools.
Identifying the cause-and-effect chain is essential to determine if the logic is practically sound or merely an assumption.
3
Evaluate the overall strength of the argument.
The argument reveals a direct, highly probable negative consequence that fundamentally defeats the original goal of the policy.
An argument that exposes a policy as structurally self-defeating through realistic, evidence-based logic is classified as a 'strong' argument in administrative reasoning.

Key Concept

Evaluating logical strength by identifying systemic dependencies and self-defeating public policy outcomes.
Estimated Time:1m 30s
Rate this question

Topics

Statement and Arguments

More questions from this topic