Arguments evaluation (demolishing unauthorized city structures): Should all unauthorized structures in the city be demolished? Test the arguments—(I) No: displacement concerns—where will residents of such houses live? (II) Yes: demolition will send a clear deterrent message so people refrain from constructing unauthorized buildings—on humanitarian feasibility, due process, and proportionality.

Given data

• Policy proposition: Demolish all unauthorized structures.
• Argument I: Raises immediate humanitarian feasibility—mass displacement and rehabilitation.
• Argument II: Supports blanket demolition for deterrence.

Concept / ApproachA strong argument should acknowledge due process, rehabilitation, and differentiated treatment (dangerous structures vs. procedural lapses). Pure deterrence via blanket action ignores these considerations.

Step-by-step evaluationStep 1: I highlights a critical, practical consequence tied to public interest—housing and rehabilitation—which policy must address. Hence I is strong.Step 2: II relies on fear as a rationale for indiscriminate demolition; it overlooks due process, appeals, and graded penalties—thus weak.

Verification / AlternativeTypical practice: regularisation where appropriate, penalties, and targeted demolition for unsafe/encroaching structures, not wholesale razing.

Common pitfalls

• Equating rule enforcement with blanket punitive action.

Final AnswerOnly argument I is strong.