Civic policy — Should “literacy” be the minimum criterion to vote in India? Statement: Should "literacy" be the minimum criterion for becoming a voter in India? Arguments: I. No. Mere literacy is no guarantee of political maturity of an individual. II. Yes. Illiterate people are less likely to make politically wiser decisions. III. No. Voting is the constitutional right of every citizen.

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:

  • India recognizes universal adult suffrage as a constitutional right.
  • “Literacy” here means basic reading/writing ability; “political maturity” is not formally measurable.
  • A strong argument cites constitutional principle or robust, non-discriminatory policy rationale.


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:

  • None strong: wrong; III is strong.
  • Only I and II: both are weak as explained.
  • Only II and III / All strong: include weak or discriminatory reasoning.


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

More Questions from Statement and Argument

Discussion & Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment!
Join Discussion