Statement–Argument — Should the government allow migrants from other countries to work in India? Arguments: I) No; given widespread unemployment and poverty, allowing foreign workers may aggravate domestic job scarcity. II) Yes; every country must provide livelihoods to all humans irrespective of citizenship. Choose the strong argument(s).
-
Aif only argument I is strong.
-
Bif only argument II is strong.
-
CIf either I or II is strong.
-
Dif neither I nor II is strong; and
-
ENone of these
Answer
Correct Answer: if only argument I is strong.
Explanation
Introduction / Context:Migrant work policy balances labor-market needs, humanitarian concerns, and social cohesion. The question asks which argument better addresses a policy decision within a constrained economy.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- Significant unemployment exists among domestic workers.
- Some sectors may face skill shortages; targeted visas could address them.
- States owe special duties to citizens, while also respecting human rights.
Concept / Approach:Argument I is strong within this framing: it points to labor-market slack and potential displacement pressures. Argument II asserts a universalist duty that ignores the state’s primary obligation to citizens and resource constraints; it does not propose a calibrated program (e.g., shortage-occupation lists), thus weaker.
Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Clarify goal: maximize welfare given unemployment.2) Evaluate I: context-aware caution → strong.3) Evaluate II: absolute principle lacking implementation detail → weak.Verification / Alternative check:Most countries use selective work-visa regimes rather than open access, reflecting the reasoning in I.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:“Only II/Either/Neither” overlook domestic slack and typical policy practice.
Common Pitfalls:Framing the choice as all-or-nothing; targeted migration can coexist with protecting domestic jobs.
Final Answer:if only argument I is strong.