Introduction / Context:
This item examines whether to ban aerated drinks. Strong arguments hinge on evidence and proportionality. A ban is a severe measure; it typically requires confirmed harm and lack of less-restrictive alternatives.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- I asserts a ban is the “only way” to reduce risk — an absolute claim.
- II invokes personal freedom of choice.
- III claims there is no confirmed evidence of adverse effects.
- IV appeals to supposed bans elsewhere (bandwagon/authority).
Concept / Approach:
- Evidence-based policy requires demonstrable harm; otherwise interventions should be proportionate (labelling, taxes, age limits).
- Absolutes (“only way”) and appeals to imitation are weak.
Step-by-Step Solution:
I is weak: Risk can be reduced via information, taxation, and regulation; a ban is not the sole method.II, while important as a liberty claim, is not by itself decisive in public-health contexts where proven harms justify restrictions. As framed in general terms, it is not a strong policy determinant.III is strong: If there is no confirmed evidence of harm, a total ban lacks justification; policy should await or seek robust evidence and consider lighter measures.IV is weak: “Others do it” is not a reason; contexts differ and imitation is not evidence.
Verification / Alternative check:
Public-health practice typically escalates interventions with the strength of evidence; absence of confirmed harm argues against a blanket ban.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Options crediting I or IV rely on absolutes or bandwagon; including II overstates liberty without addressing evidence of harm.
Common Pitfalls:
Confusing policy proportionality with laissez-faire; evidence remains the key determinant for a ban.
Final Answer:
Only III is strong
Discussion & Comments