Critical Reasoning – Are nuclear families better than joint families? Arguments: I. No. Joint families ensure security and also reduce the burden of work. II. Yes. Nuclear families ensure greater freedom.

Introduction / Context:
“Arguments” questions ask whether each argument is strong—i.e., directly relevant, reasonable, and capable of supporting a stance. The prompt compares two family structures: joint vs nuclear. We must judge the strength of each argument, not which structure is better.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Topic: comparative merits of joint and nuclear families.
• Argument I (against): Joint families provide security and reduce workload burden.
• Argument II (for): Nuclear families provide greater freedom.

Concept / Approach:
A strong argument should be specific to the question, touch on key criteria relevant to “better,” and be plausible. Security/work-sharing and personal freedom/autonomy are central dimensions in such evaluations, making each argument contextually meaningful.

Step-by-Step Evaluation:

Verification / Alternative check:
Both arguments cite widely acknowledged, policy-neutral factors that can rationally sway evaluation depending on values and circumstances.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Only I or only II: Ignores that both offer substantive, opposing yet valid considerations.
• Either I or II: Not mutually exclusive; both can be strong simultaneously.
• Neither: Both arguments are clearly relevant and reasonable.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing “strength of argument” with personal agreement; assuming a single correct family model irrespective of context.

Final Answer:
Both I and II are strong