Critical reasoning – Should there be a ban on product advertising? Statement: “Should there be a complete ban on product advertising?” Arguments to evaluate: I. No. In a competitive age, without effective advertising, products will not sell. II. Yes.

Question

Solve this multiple-choice question and choose the correct option.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The question asks whether a blanket ban on product advertising is desirable. We must judge which argument is logically strong for policy-making. Given Data / Assumptions: Advertising informs, differentiates, and signals quality; costs can be significant. Argument I links advertising to market functioning and competition. Argument II cites cost inflation as a reason to ban all advertising. Concept / Approach:A strong argument should advocate a proportionate policy. Market communication is central to competition; if cost is the issue, regulation or caps may be proportionate rather than a total ban. Step-by-Step Solution: Argument I: Valid. In competitive markets, advertising conveys information (price, features, availability), enabling consumer choice and efficient matching. A total ban can harm new entrants and innovation. Hence, strong.Argument II: While advertising can add costs, the conclusion (total ban) is disproportionate. Better solutions exist (truth-in-advertising laws, limits on misleading claims, disclosure rules). Hence, weak as framed. Verification / Alternative check: Economics supports informative and persuasive roles of ads; policy often regulates content/time rather than banning outright. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only II strong / Either / Neither / Both: Misrepresent the relative strength and proportionality of the arguments. Common Pitfalls: Assuming high cost alone justifies prohibition; ignoring consumer-information value. Final Answer:Only argument I is strong

More Questions from Statement and Argument

Discussion & Comments