Directions: In making decisions about important questions, it is desirable to…
2023
Directions: In making decisions about important questions, it is desirable to be able to distinguish between 'strong' arguments and 'weak' arguments. 'Strong' arguments are those, which are both important and directly related to the question. 'Weak' arguments are those, which are of minor importance and also may not be directly related to the question or may be related to a trivial aspect of the question. The question below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments a 'strong' argument is and which a 'weak' argument is.
Statement: Should the whole authority of medicines be in the hands of government?
Arguments:
I. Yes. Private companies prioritize their profits, making it too expensive for people to buy.
II. No. Many businesses will be shut.
Answer: A. Only argument I is strong — A 'strong' argument in this kind of critical-reasoning question must clear two independent tests at once: it must be substantial and important (not trivial),…
- A.
Only argument I is strong
- B.
Only argument II is strong
- C.
Either argument I or II is strong
- D.
Neither argument I nor II is strong
Show answer & explanation
Correct answer: A
A 'strong' argument in this kind of critical-reasoning question must clear two independent tests at once: it must be substantial and important (not trivial), AND it must be directly related to the specific question being asked (not to a secondary or downstream consequence of the decision). An argument that fails either test is 'weak', however persuasive it may sound on its own.
Argument I ties private, profit-driven pricing directly to whether people can actually afford medicine -- that is exactly the concern at stake when asking who should control medicine authority, and affordability of a public-welfare good like medicine is a substantial issue in its own right. It clears both tests.
Argument II raises the shutting of businesses -- a broad, secondary economic side-effect of the policy, not a fact about medicine pricing or access itself. It does not speak directly to the specific question of who should control medicine authority, so it fails the direct-relevance test even though business closures sound important in isolation.
Only argument II is strong -- wrong because II never clears the direct-relevance test; sounding important is not enough on its own.
Either argument I or II is strong -- wrong because it treats the two arguments as equally valid without applying the two-part test to each separately; one clears both tests, the other does not, so there is no genuine either/or tie.
Neither argument I nor II is strong -- wrong because dismissing both together skips testing each one independently against the two-part standard; apply the test separately to argument I and to argument II rather than grouping them into a single verdict.