Introduction / Context:
We must evaluate policy arguments about banning luxury hotels. A strong argument should be realistic, non-extreme, and directly relevant to the stated policy.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- Luxury hospitality supports tourism, conferences, and foreign exchange earnings.
- Argument I generalizes hotels as hubs for international criminals.
- Argument II highlights the need for accommodation for affluent tourists.
Concept / Approach:
Public safety is crucial, but it is normally addressed via enforcement, not blanket bans. Tourism infrastructure is a legitimate economic need.
Step-by-Step Solution:
Argument I: Overgeneralized and unsupported. Criminal misuse can occur anywhere; the remedy is better security, KYC, and law enforcement, not abolition of an industry segment. Weak.Argument II: Reasonable and pragmatic. Banning luxury hotels removes legitimate accommodation for visitors and harms tourism and jobs. Strong.
Verification / Alternative check:
Global practice targets crime through regulation and policing; hospitality sectors are regulated, not banned.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only I strong / Either / Neither / Both: These either endorse an extreme unsupported claim or ignore the economic rationale.
Common Pitfalls:
Equating misuse by a few with an inherent defect of the facility type.
Final Answer:
Only argument II is strong
Discussion & Comments