Critical reasoning — Should there be a complete ban on the manufacture and use of firecrackers? Statement: Should there be a complete ban on manufacture and use of firecrackers? Arguments: I. No. This will render thousands of workers jobless. II. Yes. The firecracker manufacturers use child labour to a large extent. III. Yes. This will be a concrete step to reduce noise and air pollution. IV. No. Use of firecrackers makes certain special occasions more lively and joyful.

Introduction / Context:
This question asks you to evaluate which arguments are “strong” with respect to an absolute public policy: a complete ban on manufacturing and using firecrackers. Strong arguments are those rooted in broad public interest, legal-ethical principles, or significant empirical harms or benefits. Weak arguments tend to be purely sentimental or insufficiently connected to policy outcomes.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• The proposal is an absolute ban, not partial restrictions or stricter regulation.
• Firecrackers create noise and air pollution and have been linked to health hazards.
• Reports of child labour in parts of the industry raise ethical and legal concerns.
• Large numbers of workers are employed in this sector and could be affected by a sudden ban.

Concept / Approach:
Assess each argument on its policy relevance and general validity. Economic livelihood (I), child protection (II), and public health (III) are classic, weighty considerations. Purely festive enjoyment (IV) is subjective and does not outweigh systematic harms in an argument-strength test.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
A balanced policy could combine phased prohibition, strict enforcement against child labour, cleaner alternatives, and worker rehabilitation. The presence of viable alternatives does not nullify I, II, or III as strong arguments; it shows how policy might operationalize them.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Only I and II: ignores the strong health/pollution case (III).
• Only I and III: ignores the serious child labour concern (II).
• Only III and IV: includes the weak sentimental IV and omits I/II.
• Only I, III and IV: again includes weak IV and drops II.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming a strong counter-argument must completely defeat the proposal. Here, I is strong even though mitigations exist; strength is about relevance and weight, not final victory.

Final Answer:
Only I, II and III are strong