Critical Reasoning – Stability of the council of ministers Statement: Should the council of ministers, once appointed, remain the same for the entire period between two elections? Arguments: I. No. Shuffling ministers and portfolios is a healthy democratic process. II. Yes. Ministers need long tenures to develop a firm hold on their portfolios.
-
AOnly argument I is strong
-
BOnly argument II is strong
-
CEither I or II is strong
-
DNeither I nor II is strong
-
EBoth I and II are strong
Answer
Correct Answer: Only argument I is strong
Explanation
Introduction / Context:The question concerns governance flexibility versus fixed tenure. We judge which argument better fits democratic accountability and practical administration without assuming extra facts.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- Cabinet reshuffles can address performance, coalition dynamics, and crises.
- Continuity has benefits, but rigidity can entrench underperformance.
- No rule requires fixed composition for an entire term.
Concept / Approach:Strong arguments appeal to accountability and adaptability. An argument solely claiming tenure is necessary may be too one-sided when oversight and performance adjustments are essential in practice.
Step-by-Step Solution:
Evaluate I: It frames reshuffles as a democratic tool to improve governance, correct misfits, and respond to changing needs—this is a strong, relevant reason against rigidity.Evaluate II: While expertise benefits from time, locking composition for the entire term ignores accountability mechanisms and changing circumstances. Overly rigid; thus weaker.Verification / Alternative check:Most parliamentary systems allow reshuffles for legitimate reasons; this supports I’s strength.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
- II alone overvalues tenure and neglects governance realities.
- “Both/Either/Neither” misstate relative strengths.
Common Pitfalls:Assuming stability always outweighs performance oversight.
Final Answer:Only argument I is strong