Difficulty: Medium
Correct Answer: if neither I nor II follows
Explanation:
Introduction / Context:
The statement frames insurance as an essential service that a welfare state “should provide.” Logical care is needed: “should provide” does not exclude private participation, nor does it generalize to all essential services.
Given Data / Assumptions:
Concept / Approach:
Conclusion I imputes anti-privatisation, which is not necessarily implied. A welfare state can regulate, subsidize, or co-provide alongside private insurers. Conclusion II overgeneralizes from one sector (insurance) to all essential services, which the statement does not do.
Step-by-Step Solution:
Verification / Alternative check:
Imagine mixed models (public options + private plans). The statement remains true without negating private presence or other sectors’ arrangements.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Common Pitfalls:
Equating “state should ensure” with “state should monopolize.” They are distinct.
Final Answer:
Neither I nor II follows.
Discussion & Comments