Critical Reasoning – Safekeeping of national-significance awards Statement: Should individuals/institutions that possess treasures of national significance (for example, Nobel Prizes) hand them over to the Central Government for safe custody?

Question

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

Curioustab · Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:This problem examines policy arguments around cultural property and custodianship. We must decide which argument is “strong,” meaning relevant, reasonable, and not based on sweeping or doubtful assumptions. Given Data / Assumptions: Treasures are privately held by winners or institutions. No evidence is given that all private custodians cannot protect them. Ownership rights and autonomy are part of the policy context. Concept / Approach:An argument is strong if it rests on a sensible principle or clear fact that supports or opposes the proposal without requiring extra assumptions that are not stated or commonly accepted. Step-by-Step Solution: Evaluate I: It asserts a universal lack of protective capacity (“do not have enough resources”). This is over-generalized and unsupported. Many institutions and individuals can and do protect high-value artifacts adequately. Hence, I is weak.Evaluate II: It appeals to property rights and rightful custody of awardees/owners. This is a clear, relevant, and principled reason against compulsory central custody. Hence, II is strong. Verification / Alternative check:Even if the government could offer better security, compulsory transfer is a separate policy question. Ownership/custody rights remain a valid decisive consideration, sustaining the strength of II. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “Only I” and “Both” overstate I, which lacks evidence. “Either” or “Neither” fail because II is clearly strong. Common Pitfalls:Assuming incapacity of all private custodians; equating “may be safer with government” with “must be compulsory.” Final Answer:Only argument II is strong

Answer

Explanation