Introduction / Context:
This is a standard “Arguments” critical-reasoning item. We are asked whether the government should stop spending large amounts on international sports and to judge which of the two given arguments is strong, i.e., logical, relevant, and sufficiently persuasive without relying on extreme assumptions.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- The issue concerns public expenditure on international sports.
- Argument I claims the same budget should be diverted to poverty alleviation.
- Argument II claims cutting spending would frustrate athletes and curtail exposure.
- No specific data about budget shares, opportunity costs, or outcomes is provided.
Concept / Approach:
In this format, a strong argument is specific, pragmatic, and directly addresses the policy decision without overgeneralization or false dilemmas. We must avoid arguments that presume an either–or trade-off or that rely on emotions without evidence.
Step-by-Step Solution:
Assess Argument I: It assumes every rupee spent on sports necessarily reduces funds for the poor and that complete cessation is the only way to fund welfare. Public budgets are multi-sectoral; the claim is simplistic and prescriptive without evidence of inefficiency in sports spending or marginal benefits of reallocation. Hence, weak.Assess Argument II: It assumes that exposure is only possible through large government spending and that cutting “huge” amounts automatically frustrates athletes. Alternatives exist (targeted grants, private sponsorships, high-performance schemes). The claim is speculative and not sufficient to justify maintaining “huge” spending. Hence, weak.
Verification / Alternative check:
A balanced strong argument would cite cost–benefit, multiplier effects (tourism, health), or improved targeting of funds. Neither given argument offers such substance.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only I strong / Only II strong / Either / Both: Each overstates the quality of the respective argument(s). Neither is adequately reasoned or data-grounded.
Common Pitfalls:
Treating budgets as zero-sum without nuance; accepting emotional appeals (frustration) as policy logic.
Final Answer:
Neither I nor II is strong
Discussion & Comments