Introduction / Context:
Evaluating a total ban on tobacco requires balancing public health against livelihoods and fiscal realities. Strong arguments are those that directly bear on feasibility and significant consequences, not moralizing statements without policy substance.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- I moralizes expenditure on smoking — a value judgment without policy mechanism.
- II highlights immediate job losses to a large workforce if a total ban is imposed.
- III points to foregone tax revenue if products are banned.
Concept / Approach:
- Strong policy reasoning weighs transitional costs and socioeconomic impact.
- Fiscal loss alone is not a decisive argument if public health gains dominate; employment disruption is a tangible, near-term cost requiring mitigation.
Step-by-Step Solution:
I is weak: “It is wrong to smoke away money” is moral rhetoric and does not inform policy design.II is strong: A total ban would instantly displace workers in cultivation, processing, logistics, and retail. This consequence is direct and material.III is weaker: Revenue loss matters but can be offset by alternative taxes or long-term health savings; as a sole reason against a ban, it lacks durable policy weight.
Verification / Alternative check:
Many countries use graduated controls (taxation, warnings, age limits, smoke-free spaces) rather than total bans precisely due to the disruption noted in II.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Options crediting I or III overstate moral/fiscal points relative to employment disruption.
Common Pitfalls:
Treating a complex externality problem as a simple moral issue.
Final Answer:
Only II is strong
Discussion & Comments