Statement–Argument — Should cottage industries be encouraged in rural areas? Arguments: I) Yes; rural people are creative. II) Yes; it helps to solve unemployment to some extent. Identify 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
-
ENone of these
Answer
Correct Answer: if only Argument II is strong
Explanation
Introduction / Context:Encouraging cottage industries is a rural-development policy question. Strong arguments should be programmatic (employment, incomes, local value addition) rather than generic praise of a population.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- Cottage industries can generate local jobs with modest capital.
- Reducing underemployment is a key rural objective.
- Creativity varies individually; blanket claims are not policy grounds.
Concept / Approach:Argument I is a broad compliment and not a policy mechanism. Argument II targets a recognized development outcome—employment creation—directly relevant and measurable. Hence II is strong and I is weak.
Step-by-Step Solution:
I: Weak—asserts creativity without linking to outcomes, support, or feasibility.II: Strong—employment generation is a standard policy rationale for promoting small-scale rural enterprises.Verification / Alternative check:Impact evaluations often measure jobs/incomes, not “creativity,” reinforcing why II is the stronger justification.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:“Either” would over-credit I; “Neither” ignores II’s strength; “Only I” is clearly insufficient.
Common Pitfalls:Confusing positive trait assertions with policy justifications.
Final Answer:if only Argument II is strong.