Consider the statement which is followed by two arguments (i) and (ii).…

Concept

In a statement-and-arguments item, each argument is assessed independently against a strength test. A strong argument is directly relevant to the proposal, identifies a material consequence that genuinely follows from it, and rests on a reasonable assumption rather than a speculative or extreme one. An argument is weak when it is off the subject, merely restates the statement, is trivial in its effect, or asserts a consequence that does not actually follow from what is being proposed. Strength is a property of the reasoning offered, not of the side taken, so a 'yes' argument and a 'no' argument are each judged on their own merits.

Applying the test to each argument

Argument (i): 'Yes, it will go a long way in eliminating corruption in bureaucracy.' A Lokpal is an independent statutory ombudsman empowered to receive complaints of corruption against public functionaries, to have them inquired into and investigated, and to have prosecution initiated before a special court. Curbing corruption among public servants is the very function such an institution exists to perform, and making it strong and powerful bears directly on how far it can perform that function. The consequence named is therefore directly relevant to the proposal and material to the decision, so argument (i) meets the strength test.

Argument (ii): 'No, it will discourage honest officers from making quick decisions.' A Lokpal's jurisdiction runs to allegations of corruption, such as bribery and criminal misconduct, and not to lawful administrative decisions taken in good faith and recorded on file. The claim therefore assumes that scrutiny aimed at wrongdoing will by itself deter honest decision-making, an assumption the proposal does not supply and one that does not follow from the institution's remit. Resting on that unsupported assumption, the consideration is speculative rather than material, so argument (ii) does not meet the strength test.

Cross-check and contrast

• Reading it as 'Only argument (ii) is strong' would retain the speculative deterrent claim while setting aside the anti-corruption consequence, which is the proposal's own declared purpose.

• Reading it as 'Both the arguments are strong' would admit the speculative deterrent claim alongside the anti-corruption consequence, even though that claim rests on an assumption the proposal does not support.

• Reading it as 'Neither of the arguments is strong' would also set aside the anti-corruption consequence, although that consequence is directly relevant to a strong and powerful Lokpal and material to the decision.

Result

Argument (i) identifies a direct and material consequence of the proposal, while argument (ii) rests on an assumption that does not follow from it. Only argument (i) is strong.