Statement–Argument — Have economic reforms proved effective? Arguments: I) Yes; there has been a substantial improvement in GDP growth. II) No; the observed progress is mainly due to favorable monsoons. 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 either I or II is strong.
Explanation
Introduction / Context:Attribution is central to policy evaluation. GDP growth can reflect structural reforms (investment climate, competition, trade) or exogenous shocks (weather for agrarian economies).
Given Data / Assumptions:
- Reforms aim to raise productivity and potential output.
- Monsoons heavily influence agriculture, income, and demand.
- Short-term growth can mask underlying drivers without deeper analysis.
Concept / Approach:Both arguments can be strong in principle. Argument I cites macro outcomes consistent with reform effects. Argument II raises a credible alternative explanation (weather), urging caution in attributing causality. Without more data (sectoral breakdowns, multi-year trends), each stands as a reasonable policy claim; thus, “either.”
Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Recognize GDP as a composite indicator with multiple drivers.2) Accept I as plausible reform impact.3) Accept II as plausible exogenous driver.Verification / Alternative check:Robust evaluation would use counterfactuals and sectoral analyses to separate monsoon effects from reform impacts.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:“Only I/Only II” prematurely assign causality; “Neither” denies reasonable hypotheses.
Common Pitfalls:Confusing correlation with causation; ignoring agriculture’s weight in demand cycles.
Final Answer:If either I or II is strong.