Difficulty: Medium
Correct Answer: Only III is strong
Explanation:
Introduction / Context:The prompt asks whether literacy should become a minimum eligibility criterion to vote. In argument-strength questions, the focus is on principled, generalizable reasons tied to constitutional norms and sound policy logic. Sentiments or stereotypes are not sufficient.
Given Data / Assumptions:
Concept / Approach:We evaluate each argument on whether it justifies changing a fundamental right. Restrictions on fundamental rights require compelling, carefully tailored reasons and must avoid discriminatory assumptions.
Step-by-Step Solution:
Argument I: “Mere literacy is no guarantee of political maturity.” While true, this is not, by itself, a principled reason to reject literacy as a criterion; it compares apples to oranges. Voting is not conditioned on “maturity” today, and literacy neither ensures nor negates it. Thus I is not a strong policy ground in this framing.Argument II: “Illiterate people are less likely to vote wisely.” This is a stereotype, lacks actionable evidence, and is discriminatory. It fails the constitutional fairness test and is therefore weak.Argument III: “Voting is the constitutional right of every citizen.” Strong. It directly cites the controlling principle. Any new bar on voting must satisfy strict standards, which a generic literacy bar does not meet.Verification / Alternative check:A better reform is voter education and accessible ballots (symbols, assistance), which raise informed participation without excluding citizens.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Common Pitfalls:Confusing “desirable voter knowledge” with “eligibility.” Eligibility is about rights; knowledge is improved through education and outreach, not exclusion.
Final Answer:Only III is strong
Discussion & Comments