Statement–Argument — Should AIDS tests be made mandatory in India for brides and grooms before marriage? Arguments: I) Yes; India bears a high burden of HIV/AIDS, and pre-marital screening could help reduce transmission and protect spouses and future children. II) No; compulsory testing would humiliate couples and may stigmatize them socially. Choose the strong argument(s).

Difficulty: Medium

Correct Answer: if only argument I is strong.

Explanation:


Introduction / Context:
This Statement–Argument item evaluates public health reasoning versus concerns about dignity and stigma. Mandatory health screenings raise questions about proportionality, efficacy, rights, and the social costs of labeling. The task is to judge which argument is “strong,” i.e., relevant, specific, and policy-germane in advancing or rejecting the proposal.


Given Data / Assumptions:

  • HIV/AIDS remains a serious communicable disease with lifelong implications if untreated.
  • Marriage is a context of intimate contact with potential vertical (mother-to-child) and horizontal (spousal) transmission risks.
  • Screening accuracy is high when modern tests and confirmatory protocols are used.
  • Policy can combine testing with counseling, confidentiality safeguards, and linkages to treatment.


Concept / Approach:
A strong argument should articulate a compelling public interest or a rights-based limitation with clear policy relevance. Argument I invokes disease control, risk reduction for spouses/children, and the opportunity to connect positives to therapy—core public-health goals. Argument II cites “humiliation,” which is a serious ethical concern, but as stated it neither proposes safeguards nor weighs the countervailing risk to uninformed spouses; it stays at an assertion level.


Step-by-Step Solution:

1) Identify the policy goal: reduce undisclosed HIV transmission in marriages.2) Assess Argument I: links mandatory testing to earlier detection and prevention → strong and relevant.3) Assess Argument II: flags dignity harms but offers no remedy (e.g., confidential counseling, informed consent variants) and does not outweigh public-health rationale → comparatively weak.


Verification / Alternative check:


Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Only II” ignores public-health imperatives; “Either” falsely elevates II to parity; “Neither” denies I’s clear relevance.


Common Pitfalls:
Equating stigma concerns with an argument to abandon screening, rather than to design it ethically (confidentiality and counseling).


Final Answer:
if only argument I is strong.

More Questions from Statement and Argument

Discussion & Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment!
Join Discussion