Statement–Argument — Should there be a complete ban on mining coal in India? Arguments: I) Yes; the present coal stock will soon be exhausted if mining continues at the current rate. II) No; India lacks alternative energy sources in sufficient quantity. Choose the strong argument(s).
-
Aif only Argument I is Strong.
-
Bif only Argument II is Strong.
-
Cif either Argument I or II is Strong.
-
Dif neither Argument I or II is Strong.
-
ENone of these
Answer
Correct Answer: if only Argument II is Strong.
Explanation
Introduction / Context:Coal remains a significant part of India’s energy mix. The question asks whether a total mining ban is justified based on resource depletion and current energy alternatives.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- Electricity demand is large and growing.
- Alternatives (renewables, storage, nuclear, gas) are expanding but may not yet fully replace coal dispatchability.
- A sudden ban could jeopardize grid reliability and industry.
Concept / Approach:Argument I is weak: finite stock alone does not justify an immediate ban; prudent extraction, efficiency, pollution control, and transition planning are the rational responses to scarcity. Argument II is strong: without sufficient substitutes, a total ban would impose severe energy security and economic risks.
Step-by-Step Solution:
I: “Stock will end” → argues for managed transition, not abrupt prohibition → weak.II: Energy adequacy and reliability are core policy constraints; until substitutes scale, a total ban is imprudent → strong.Verification / Alternative check:Most transitions phase down coal while scaling renewables/storage and improving efficiency, not immediate bans.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:“Either/Neither/Only I” misread the relative policy relevance.
Common Pitfalls:Equating scarcity with immediate prohibition rather than calibrated transition.
Final Answer:if only Argument II is Strong.