Examkin

Question

Difficulty: MediumStatement and Arguments

Analyze the following policy question and the two arguments presented in response.

Statement: Should the national government mandate that all electronics manufacturers establish and directly fund e-waste collection centers in every district of the country?

Argument I: Yes, holding manufacturers financially responsible for the end-of-life cycle of their products will significantly reduce illegal dumping and incentivize the design of longer-lasting, recyclable devices.
Argument II: No, requiring companies to fund these centers across every single district will immediately bankrupt all domestic electronics manufacturers, causing a total collapse of the national technology sector.

Which of the following describes the logical strength of the given arguments?

  1. Only argument I is strongAnswer
  2. B
    Only argument II is strong
  3. C
    Both arguments I and II are strong
  4. D
    Neither argument I nor II is strong

Answer

Only argument I is strong
Argument I is strong because it logically connects the proposed administrative action to a highly probable and desirable outcome (reducing illegal dumping and improving product design). It avoids extreme language and relies on sound cause-and-effect reasoning. Argument II, however, is weak because it resorts to extreme hyperbole. Predicting 'immediate bankruptcy' of 'all' manufacturers and a 'total collapse' is a disproportionate and highly unrealistic assumption for an infrastructure mandate.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Evaluate the strength of Argument I.
Argument I is identified as a strong argument.
It presents a direct, logically sound, and proportionate consequence of the policy. Holding manufacturers financially responsible is a widely recognized mechanism for reducing externalities like illegal dumping and encouraging better product design.
2
Evaluate the strength of Argument II.
Argument II is identified as a weak argument.
While financial burden is a valid concern to raise, the argument claims that the policy will 'immediately bankrupt all' manufacturers and cause a 'total collapse' of the sector. Such extreme, catastrophic, and hyperbolic predictions are considered logically weak because they lack proportion and realistic grounding.
3
Select the correct option based on the evaluation.
Since only Argument I is logically sound and proportionate, the option stating 'Only argument I is strong' is correct.
It correctly distinguishes between the balanced, logical reasoning of Argument I and the fallacious, extreme reasoning of Argument II.

Key Concept

Statement and Arguments
Estimated Time:1m 30s
Rate this question

Topics

Statement and Arguments

More questions from this topic