Introduction / Context:
Excise or indirect tax decisions should rely on clear criteria (luxury vs. merit goods, externalities, revenue needs) and sound evidence. Here, both arguments hinge on sweeping generalizations about who buys televisions.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- I claims TVs are “only” for the rich — an absolute claim unlikely to be true.
- II claims TVs are also bought by the poor — but merely stating ownership diversity does not address tax design.
- No data on income elasticity, affordability, or policy objective is given.
Concept / Approach:
- A strong argument should provide a principled basis (e.g., regressivity, digital inclusion, externalities) rather than broad assertions.
- Both statements are anecdotal and do not engage with tax policy goals or consequences.
Step-by-Step Solution:
Argument I is weak because it rests on a false absolute (“only rich”).Argument II is weak because simply noting that the poor also purchase TVs does not prove that higher or lower taxes are justified.
Verification / Alternative check:
Sound analysis would weigh regressivity, access to information, and market structure—none of which either argument addresses.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Any option crediting I or II as strong overlooks their general and unsupported nature.
Common Pitfalls:
Confusing a sociological observation with a policy rationale.
Final Answer:
Neither I nor II is strong
Discussion & Comments