Difficulty: Easy
Correct Answer: Only argument II is strong
Explanation:
Introduction / Context:
This item tests argument strength in ethical public administration. The statement asks whether officers who accept bribes should be punished. We must judge the intrinsic strength of each argument, assuming general real-world norms of governance, not special pleading or exceptional anecdotes.
Given Data / Assumptions:
Concept / Approach:
Evaluate each argument against legal-ethical principles and policy logic. Arguments that normalize illegality through unspecified “compulsions” are weak; arguments that appeal to rule of law and duty are strong. We do not consider private hardships unless the statement explicitly frames exemptions.
Step-by-Step Solution:
Verification / Alternative check:
In standard ethics frameworks, deterrence, fairness, and equality before law justify penalizing bribery. Edge cases (coercion, duress) are handled through due process and evidentiary standards, not by a blanket refusal to punish.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Common Pitfalls:
Confusing empathy for hardship with policy legitimacy. Compassionate considerations are adjudicated case by case; they do not invalidate the general rule against bribery.
Final Answer:
Only argument II is strong
Discussion & Comments