Public policy reasoning — Should India impose a complete ban on all chemical pesticides? Statement: Should there be a complete ban on use of all types of chemical pesticides in India? Arguments: I. No. The pests will destroy all the crops and the farmers will have nothing to harvest. II. Yes. The chemical pesticides used in agriculture pollute underground water and this has become a serious health hazard.
-
AOnly argument I is strong
-
BOnly argument II is strong
-
CEither I or II is strong
-
DNeither I nor II is strong
-
EBoth I and II are strong
Answer
Correct Answer: Only argument II is strong
Explanation
Introduction / Context:The question is about an absolute policy (a complete ban) on chemical pesticides. We must evaluate which argument provides a robust, general justification, not a speculative or exaggerated claim. Environmental health, drinking-water safety, and long-term public risk are key considerations.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- The policy under consideration is a complete ban (not partial restrictions).
- Chemical pesticides can contaminate groundwater and impose health costs.
- Integrated Pest Management (IPM), bio-pesticides, and agronomic practices can substitute in many contexts (general knowledge supporting feasibility, though not part of options).
Concept / Approach:We compare the logical tightness of each argument relative to the proposed absolute ban. A strong argument either demonstrates unacceptable harm from continued use (supporting the ban) or shows why a complete ban is logically untenable across contexts (opposes the ban) with cogent reasoning.
Step-by-Step Solution:
Argument I claims total crop loss. This is an overstatement: pest control has many alternatives (biological control, crop rotation, resistant varieties). The argument is alarmist and not well-reasoned; hence weak.Argument II emphasizes serious health hazards via water pollution. This is a concrete, public-health-oriented rationale directly linked to an absolute ban, therefore strong.Verification / Alternative check:Public health harms that are systemic and widespread often justify stringent controls, including bans on especially dangerous compounds. By contrast, slippery-slope claims of “no harvest at all” lack nuance and evidentiary footing.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
- I strong: incorrect due to exaggeration and ignoring alternatives.
- Either I or II strong: false; they are not equally compelling.
- Neither strong: false; II is strong.
- Both strong: false; I is weak.
Common Pitfalls:Assuming that opposing a complete ban requires doomsday scenarios. Better counter-arguments would cite phased regulation or risk-tiering, which I does not present.
Final Answer:Only argument II is strong