Difficulty: Easy
Correct Answer: Only argument I is strong
Explanation:
Introduction / Context:The issue is whether to declare ad-hoc public holidays after the demise of a leader. We judge the strength of each argument based on direct policy relevance and practicality without assuming extra facts.
Given Data / Assumptions:
Concept / Approach:In governance reasoning, a strong argument cites efficiency, continuity of essential services, or proportionality. An argument that appeals only to sentiment, when alternatives exist, is weaker.
Step-by-Step Solution:
Evaluate I: It highlights a direct public-interest cost—unscheduled shutdowns impede productivity and service delivery. This is a concrete, policy-relevant reason. Hence I is strong.Evaluate II: It rests on popular sentiment. While homage is important, it does not demonstrate that a holiday is the necessary or best instrument (public mourning, half-mast flags, minutes of silence are alternatives). Thus, II is weak.Verification / Alternative check:When multiple, less disruptive ways exist to honor leaders, the argument for a sweeping holiday loses policy strength.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Common Pitfalls:Equating respect with mandatory holidays; ignoring economic and service impacts of sudden closures.
Final Answer:Only argument I is strong
Discussion & Comments