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
Discussion & Comments