Statement–Argument — Should tobacco production be banned in the country? Arguments: I) Yes; consumption in any form is injurious to health and imposes huge social costs. II) No; tobacco provides income to farmers. 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:Tobacco is a leading preventable cause of disease. Production bans, however, have economic implications for growers and supply chains. The question tests which argument squarely addresses societal welfare.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- Tobacco use drives morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs.
- Alternative livelihoods can be promoted for affected farmers.
- Policy options include taxation, warnings, marketing restrictions, and crop substitution.
Concept / Approach:Argument I is strong: it invokes overwhelming public-health harms. Argument II is weak as a policy counter: income source alone does not justify producing a harmful commodity; the correct response is transition support, not perpetuation of harm.
Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Identify social objective: reduce harm and costs.2) Evaluate I: direct harm rationale → strong.3) Evaluate II: points to livelihood but not to public interest—better addressed via crop transition → weak.Verification / Alternative check:Health economics consistently finds large negative externalities from tobacco.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:“Only II/Either/Neither” misclassify the relative weight.
Common Pitfalls:Ignoring transition policies for farmers when assessing bans.
Final Answer:if only argument I is strong.