Critical Reasoning – Should octroi be abolished? Statement: Should the local tax called octroi be abolished? Arguments: I. Yes. Abolishing octroi will eliminate an important source of corruption. II. No. Abolishing octroi will adversely affect government revenues.
-
AOnly argument I is strong
-
BOnly argument II is strong
-
CEither I or II is strong
-
DNeither I nor II is strong
-
EBoth I and II are strong
Answer
Correct Answer: Both I and II are strong
Explanation
Introduction / Context:This is a policy trade-off. We evaluate whether each side gives a valid, decision-relevant reason. Octroi is a point-of-entry levy; arguments typically involve governance quality and fiscal impact.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- I claims corruption risk is tied to octroi check-posts and discretionary assessments.
- II claims octroi contributes to local revenues.
- No alternative revenue mechanisms are specified.
Concept / Approach:A strong argument may highlight a core benefit (anti-corruption) or a core cost (revenue loss). Both can be simultaneously strong because policy decisions often involve balancing such considerations.
Step-by-Step Solution:
Evaluate I: Corruption opportunities at physical check-points are a recognized governance issue. Removing a mechanism prone to rent-seeking is a valid reason. So I is strong.Evaluate II: Revenue implications are immediate and material to local service delivery. Without a replacement tax, abolition can hurt finances. So II is strong.Verification / Alternative check:Even if one designs e-tolls or compensatory grants, the two considerations remain central: integrity and revenue. Thus both are decision-relevant and strong.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
- Only I or only II ignores the legitimate countervailing concern.
- Either/Neither misread the policy trade-off nature.
Common Pitfalls:Treating policy choices as single-factor decisions; ignoring fiscal sustainability.
Final Answer:Both I and II are strong