Critical Reasoning – National infrastructure policy Statement: Should India develop a national water grid by interlinking the rivers across the country? Arguments: I. No. This is not possible because we do not have the technical know-how. II. Yes.

Question

Solve this multiple-choice question and choose the correct option.

Curioustab · Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:In “strong/weak argument” questions, we judge whether an argument is directly relevant, fact-plausible, and policy-useful given the statement. The policy under debate is building a national water grid by interlinking rivers to balance floods and droughts. We must assess the merit of each argument, not our personal opinion on river linking. Given Data / Assumptions: The statement asks about a national-level interlinking (policy feasibility and desirability). No additional facts are provided about cost, environment, or exact technology. We should avoid absolute claims that add unsupported facts. Concept / Approach:Strong arguments are specific, address core decision criteria (benefits, feasibility, risks), and avoid sweeping, unsubstantiated assertions. An argument that says “not possible” requires strong evidence; an argument that describes a clear potential public benefit can be considered strong if it is directly tied to the policy. Step-by-Step Solution: Evaluate I: “Not possible” due to lack of technical know-how is a blanket assertion. Large inter-basin transfer projects exist globally and within India in parts. The claim neither presents evidence nor engages with policy design options (phased execution, pilots). Hence, I is weak.Evaluate II: The stated benefit—moving excess water to deficit basins—is directly relevant to the policy’s core objective (mitigating floods/droughts). While costs and environmental impacts would matter in practice, at the reasoning level this is a cogent, on-point benefit argument. Hence, II is strong. Verification / Alternative check:If an argument can stand even when we consider counterpoints (cost, ecology), it remains strong as a benefit proposition. Argument II continues to be relevant; argument I collapses without evidence. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “Only I” is wrong because I is an unsupported impossibility claim. “Either…/Neither…” are wrong because II is clearly strong. “Both” is wrong as I is not strong. Common Pitfalls:Confusing “strong argument” with forecasting the final policy decision; accepting absolute impossibility claims without evidence. Final Answer:Only argument II is strong

Answer

Explanation