Statement–Argument — Should the minimum age (25 years) for entry to bars and pubs be reduced? Arguments: I. Yes. By 18–20 years, citizens vote and can distinguish right from wrong; denying entry is paternalistic. II. No. Social maturity and economic independence usually accrue later; lowering the age risks harm via premature exposure and poor decisions.
-
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 either I or II is strong
Explanation
Introduction / Context:The policy balances adult autonomy against public-health and safety considerations (alcohol misuse, late-night hazards).
Given Data / Assumptions:
- Age thresholds vary across activities (voting, driving, alcohol).
- Harm-reduction tools (ID checks, timings) can mitigate risks.
- Different jurisdictions calibrate thresholds differently.
Concept / Approach:Both autonomy (I) and risk mitigation (II) are legitimate policy bases. Where both are reasonable, the correct evaluation is “either I or II is strong.”
Step-by-Step Solution:1) I: Emphasises legal adulthood and capacity—relevant.2) II: Emphasises developmental and safety concerns—also relevant.3) Since both are persuasive yet conflicting value choices, either can be strong.
Verification / Alternative check:Comparative law shows differing age limits, indicating both rationales are used.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:“Only I/Only II/Both/Neither” misrepresent the policy trade-off structure.
Common Pitfalls:Treating the threshold as purely moral rather than public-health policy.
Final Answer:if either I or II is strong.