Examkin

Question

Difficulty: MediumStatement and Arguments

A public health crisis prompts a debate on regulatory enforcement. Read the proposed administrative action and the two arguments that follow.

Action: Should the state health ministry immediately revoke the operating licenses of all regional pharmaceutical distributors upon the discovery of a single counterfeit medicine batch in the retail market?

Argument I: Yes, public safety is the ultimate priority, and this severe measure is the only way to completely eradicate medical fraud.
Argument II: No, revoking all licenses simultaneously will instantly collapse the medical supply chain and deny critical patients access to essential medications.

Which of the provided options accurately classifies the strength of these arguments?

  1. A
    Only Argument I is logically strong
  2. Only Argument II is logically strongAnswer
  3. C
    Both Argument I and Argument II are logically strong
  4. D
    Neither Argument I nor Argument II is logically strong

Answer

The option stating that only the second argument is logically strong is the correct answer.
The correct answer identifies that only the second argument is robust. The second argument logically points out the disastrous practical consequence (supply chain collapse) of the proposed policy. The first argument is weak because it advocates for a vastly disproportionate punishment and uses absolute phrasing ('only way to completely eradicate'), which is logically flawed.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the proposed administrative action.
The action suggests a collective punishment (revoking all licenses) across an entire region for an isolated incident (a single counterfeit batch).
Identifying the scope and proportionality of the proposed policy is essential for evaluating the arguments responding to it.
2
Evaluate the logical force of Argument I.
Argument I is weak. It supports a disproportionate administrative action and relies on the absolute, unrealistic claim that it is the 'only way' to eradicate fraud.
Strong arguments must present realistic outcomes and avoid extreme, generalized assumptions.
3
Evaluate the logical force of Argument II.
Argument II is strong. It highlights a highly probable and severe negative consequence (collapsing the supply chain) of the proposed action.
Arguments that accurately identify direct, substantial practical consequences of a policy are considered logically robust.

Key Concept

Evaluating the logical force, proportionality, and practical consequences of arguments responding to administrative decisions.
Rate this question

Topics

Statement and Arguments

More questions from this topic