Examkin

Question

Difficulty: Very hardStatement and Arguments

Consider the policy proposal statement and the argument provided below:

Statement: Should the state government completely replace manual administrative verification with automated AI-driven algorithmic allocation for all rural welfare entitlements?

Argument: No, because algorithm-driven entitlement allocation risks perpetuating systemic exclusion of marginalized rural populations who lack digital infrastructure and formal identity documentation, thereby directly defeating the primary objective of public welfare.

Evaluation Assertion: Based on the principles of analytical reasoning in State PSC examinations, the argument presented above is logically STRONG.

Answer: Answer

Answer

The assertion is True. The argument is logically strong because it presents a directly relevant, substantive, and socio-economically valid counter-reasoning highlighting the real-world risks of digital exclusion in public welfare delivery.
The given argument directly addresses the policy proposal by articulating a substantive, realistic, and socio-economically critical failure mode—digital and document exclusion of marginalized beneficiaries. Because it provides a logically sound and directly relevant justification, the assertion that the argument is strong is correct.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the core proposal statement and the central claim of the argument.
The statement proposes complete automation of rural welfare entitlement allocation. The argument opposes this ('No') by highlighting the risk of excluding marginalized citizens due to digital and documentation gaps.
Establishing direct logical connection between the statement and argument is the necessary first step in evaluation.
2
Evaluate the argument against standard CSAT criteria for strong arguments (relevance, logical soundness, realistic impact).
The argument provides a practical, non-trivial, and evidence-supported rationale: automated allocation without adequate digital infrastructure leads to exclusion of vulnerable target beneficiaries.
A strong argument must go beyond mere opinion or repetition and offer a valid, practical cause-and-effect link.
3
Check for common weak argument fallacies (e.g., extreme generalizations, personal bias, or assumption/truth confusion).
The argument does not exhibit fallacies; it does not claim technology is universally evil, but rather identifies a specific failure mode in rural welfare delivery.
Distinguishing valid policy critiques from logical fallacies confirms that the argument is strong, making the evaluation assertion True.

Key Concept

Evaluation of Strong vs. Weak Arguments in Public Administration and Policy Contexts
Rate this question

Topics

Statement and Arguments

More questions from this topic