Difficulty: Medium
Correct Answer: Only argument II is strong
Explanation:
Introduction / Context:The proposal centralizes medical practice under government pay with free care to patients. We must judge which argument is policy-sound and broadly reasoned.
Given Data / Assumptions:
Concept / Approach:Argument I rests on a vague “undemocratic” label, offering no constitutional or policy analysis. Argument II links the proposal to improved ethics and oversight, a concrete public benefit.
Step-by-Step Solution:
Argument I: Weak. Calling something “undemocratic” without reasoning is not persuasive; democracies often run public health systems.Argument II: Strong. It provides a plausible mechanism—uniform pay, oversight, and public accountability—to reduce unethical practices.Verification / Alternative check:Many countries use strong public funding/regulation to improve equity and ethics, supporting II’s thrust.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Common Pitfalls:Confusing public management with lack of democracy; democratic systems routinely manage essential services.
Final Answer:Only argument II is strong
Discussion & Comments