Introduction / Context:
This argument analysis concerns banning trade unions outright. We must decide which arguments are logically strong and policy-relevant.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- Total ban under consideration, not regulation or reform.
- Legitimate purposes of unions: representation, bargaining, dispute resolution.
- Abuses, if any, can be addressed by law rather than abolition.
Concept / Approach:
Strong arguments must be substantive and non-extreme. A channel for employee voice is essential for fair industrial relations; production focus and foreign practices, as stated, are not decisive justifications for a total ban.
Step-by-Step Solution:
I: Weak. Claims workers will “concentrate on production” post-ban are speculative and ignore the need for grievance redressal.II: Strong. Unions are a legitimate mechanism for collective bargaining; banning them removes a critical voice channel.III: Weak. “Illegal demands” can be checked by law; isolated misuse does not justify a complete ban.IV: Weak as framed. An appeal to foreign practice does not, by itself, establish a policy case.
Verification / Alternative check:
Best practice recommends fair regulation of unions and bargaining frameworks, not abolition.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Any option including I or III treats speculative or overgeneral claims as strong; IV is non-sequitur by itself.
Common Pitfalls:
Confusing reform/regulation with prohibition; assuming productivity rises simply by silencing worker voice.
Final Answer:
Only II is strong
Discussion & Comments