Critical reasoning — executive pay caps in multinationals: Should there be a statutory ceiling on the salaries of top executives working for multinational companies in our country, considering the supporting view that otherwise it may trigger unhealthy competition that domestic industry cannot withstand, versus the opposing view that in a liberalised economy such a cap would be counter-productive and that, once growth accelerates, the existing pay disparity would naturally reduce?

Given data

• Statement: Impose a pay ceiling on top multinational executives?
• Argument I (Yes): Without a ceiling, unhealthy competition would arise, harming domestic industry.
• Argument II (No): In a liberalised economy, pay caps are counter-productive; as growth picks up, disparities shrink.

Concept/Approach (relevance, sufficiency, and policy fit)
A strong argument must directly address the policy's purpose, rely on relevant causal reasoning, and avoid vague fears or slogans. It should be compatible with the stated economic framework.

Step-by-step evaluation
1) Argument I links executive pay to 'unhealthy competition' and domestic industry weakness; however, executive remuneration does not by itself determine market outcomes (productivity, costs, technology, regulation). The causal chain is weak and speculative.2) Argument II recognises the operating paradigm (liberalisation) where price/compensation controls usually distort incentives and talent flows. It also posits a plausible dynamic: disparities often compress as markets deepen and human capital scales.

Verification/Alternative
A more relevant pro-cap case would cite specific externalities (e.g., governance failures), which are not provided. The anti-cap case fits the liberalised market premise and offers a consistent rationale.

Common pitfalls
Treating pay caps as a tool for industrial protectionism without explaining the mechanism; ignoring incentive effects and global talent mobility.

Final Answer
Only argument II is strong.