Examkin

Question

Difficulty: MediumStatement and Arguments

Consider the following policy proposition and the two arguments that follow.

Proposition: Should the state administration deploy a fully automated artificial intelligence penalty system for all minor traffic violations, eliminating any preliminary human review?

Argument I: No, automated systems currently lack the ability to interpret situational context, meaning drivers forced into minor infractions during genuine emergencies—such as crossing a solid line to yield to an emergency vehicle—would be unfairly penalized.

Argument II: Yes, such a system is essential because the administration must subsequently impose permanent license revocation and vehicle confiscation for any first-time minor offense to guarantee absolute public compliance.

Based on logical reasoning, which of the given arguments is strong?

  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.
The first argument is strong because it raises a highly relevant, realistic, and logical concern regarding the limitations of a fully automated system in contextual emergency scenarios. The second argument is weak because its justification relies on prescribing a highly extreme, disproportionate punishment (permanent license revocation for a minor offense) which violates basic administrative proportionality.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze Argument I for relevance, logical soundness, and realistic outcomes.
Argument I highlights a valid, realistic limitation of automated systems (the inability to interpret context during emergencies), making it a logically strong counter-argument.
Strong arguments must present non-trivial, practical implications of the policy proposition.
2
Analyze Argument II for logical validity and administrative proportionality.
Argument II relies on an extreme, disproportionate administrative measure (permanent license revocation for a minor first-time offense) to justify its stance, making it logically weak.
Arguments that advocate for draconian, exaggerated, or legally disproportionate actions are always considered weak in policy reasoning.
3
Synthesize the evaluations to select the correct conclusion.
Argument I is strong, while Argument II is weak.
Only the first argument satisfies the criteria for a strong logical argument.

Key Concept

Evaluating the strength of arguments based on logical relevance, proportionality, and practical administrative feasibility.
Rate this question

Topics

Statement and Arguments

More questions from this topic