Examkin

Question

Difficulty: MediumStatement and Arguments

Read the statement and arguments carefully to evaluate their logical strength.

Statement: Should the state government transition all agricultural input subsidies directly to farmers' bank accounts via Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) instead of distributing physical fertilizers and seeds?

Argument I: Yes, because Direct Benefit Transfer minimizes financial leakages by delivering funds directly to targeted farmers, thereby reducing administrative corruption and ensuring timely assistance.
Argument II: No, because any agricultural merchant attempting to sell physical fertilizers after the policy change should face immediate lifetime imprisonment and asset seizure without investigation.

Which of the following options correctly evaluates the strength of the given arguments?

  1. Only argument I is strongAnswer
  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

Only argument I is strong
The argument advocating Direct Benefit Transfer addresses the central issue by explaining how direct transfers minimize leakages and corruption, establishing a clear and sound logical connection to policy effectiveness. The argument advocating extreme penalties is weak because it relies on excessive, authoritarian measures rather than sound policy logic.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze Argument I for logical relevance and soundness
Argument I links the implementation of Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) directly to the reduction of financial leakages and corruption, presenting a realistic and strong policy justification.
A strong argument must be directly related to the statement and provide a realistic, sound reason supporting or opposing the statement.
2
Analyze Argument II for administrative proportionality and logic
Argument II demands immediate lifetime imprisonment and asset seizure without investigation, which is a disproportionate administrative action and logically unsound.
Arguments that advocate extreme, harsh punitive measures or bypass procedural justice are inherently weak.
3
Synthesize the evaluation to select the correct choice
Argument I is strong and Argument II is weak, leading to the conclusion that only Argument I is strong.
Determining argument strength requires isolating valid logic from extreme or irrelevant assertions.

Key Concept

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

Topics

Statement and Arguments

More questions from this topic