Statement–Argument — Should strict action be taken against people who use ancient rocks/heritage formations for advertisements? Arguments: I. No. It is the cheapest and most cost-effective advertising medium and should not be banned. II. Yes. Heritage sites must be conserved; advertising defaces and degrades irreplaceable cultural assets.
-
Aif only argument I is strong.
-
Bif only argument II is strong.
-
CIf either I or II is strong.
-
Dif neither I nor II is strong
-
Eif both I and II are strong
Answer
Correct Answer: if only argument II is strong.
Explanation
Introduction / Context:Conservation ethics prioritise protecting cultural and natural heritage over commercial exploitation.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- Ancient rocks/heritage features are finite public goods.
- Defacement causes lasting damage and negative externalities.
- Alternative ad media exist without heritage harm.
Concept / Approach:Argument strength rests on public-interest conservation versus private cost minimisation.
Step-by-Step Solution:1) I: Appeals only to cheapness; cost alone cannot justify damaging shared heritage—weak.2) II: Protects irreplaceable assets and respects intergenerational equity—strong.
Verification / Alternative check:Common statutes penalise defacement/graffiti on protected sites.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:They elevate private cost savings over public heritage.
Common Pitfalls:Ignoring negative externalities and cultural loss.
Final Answer:if only argument II is strong.