Critical reasoning – Age restrictions for entry to beer bars Statement: Should all youngsters below 21 years be disallowed from going to a beer bar? Arguments: I. No. It is inappropriate to prevent mature individuals above 18 (who can vote) from such recreation. II. Yes. The entry fee to such pubs should also be increased. III. No. There is no such curb in certain Western countries. IV. Yes. Disallowing entry will help prevent bad company and harmful habits.

Introduction / Context:
This question weighs individual autonomy (especially for 18–20-year-olds who have legal capacities like voting) against public-health and youth-protection goals. Strong arguments should directly relate to the policy objective.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• I appeals to consistency in adulthood rights and proportionality of restrictions.
• II suggests increasing entry fees – a different policy lever, not an age bar.
• III is an appeal to foreign practice, not necessarily locally appropriate.
• IV emphasizes harm prevention among youth.

Concept / Approach:
We prioritize arguments that address rights and harms in the local legal context. Appeals to unrelated measures or external practice without reasoning are weak.

Step-by-Step Solution:
I – Strong: If 18 is a recognized age of majority for key civic rights, a total ban up to 21 warrants strong justification; this is a relevant autonomy argument.II – Weak: Hiking entry fees does not answer whether an under-21 ban is justified; it is a separate policy.III – Weak: “Western countries do/don’t” is not a rationale for India without showing contextual fit.IV – Strong: Preventing early exposure to alcohol-related risks (habit formation, peer influence) is a legitimate protective rationale.

Verification / Alternative check:
Public policy often balances autonomy against harm minimization. Both I and IV map to those legitimate poles.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• I alone: Ignores protective concerns (IV).
• III & IV: Includes weak appeal to external practice.
• Only I / None: Miss one valid side or both.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing comparative practice with justification; conflating pricing policy with age restrictions.

Final Answer:
Only I and IV are strong