Arguments evaluation (phased privatisation of Indian Railways): Should the railways be privatised in a phased manner like other public sector enterprises? Compare the arguments—(I) Yes: privatisation is the only way to create competitiveness and better public services; (II) No: privatisation would threaten national security as multinationals would enter—testing for extremity (“only way”), evidence, and policy realism.

Given data

• Policy under consideration: phased privatisation of Indian Railways.
• Argument I: It is the only way to improve competitiveness and service quality.
• Argument II: It would endanger national security due to entry of multinationals.

Concept / Approach
A strong argument avoids absolutes and supports claims with clear causal links. “Only way” claims are weak if alternatives exist; vague fear-based reasoning without mechanism/evidence is also weak.

Step-by-step evaluation
Step 1: Argument I is extreme: competitiveness and service quality can also improve via internal reforms (corporatisation, regulation, PPPs, service benchmarks); thus “only way” is not justified.Step 2: Argument II is speculative. Privatisation (or PPP) does not inherently transfer sovereign control; regulation and security protocols remain with the state. Threat claims need specifics, which are absent.

Verification / Alternative
Mixed models (competition for the market, regulated franchises) show multiple pathways to efficiency—disproving I’s exclusivity and II’s inevitability.

Common pitfalls

• Treating a policy tool as a panacea.
• Invoking national security without explaining the causal channel.

Final Answer
Neither I nor II is strong.