Introduction / Context:
This problem weighs individual privacy against public-health and family-health benefits. We must judge which argument is stronger, not which policy we personally prefer.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- The proposal is universal and compulsory medical examination before marriage.
- Argument I: privacy intrusion (rights-based), without considering public-health benefits.
- Argument II: medical screening can reduce risks of serious ailments in offspring (public-health benefit).
Concept / Approach:
In arguments questions, a strong argument is specific, relevant, and logically connects the policy to a significant outcome. Public-health measures (screening, counseling) have demonstrable benefits in preventing transmissible or hereditary conditions.
Step-by-Step Solution:
Argument I: While privacy is a legitimate concern, it is presented as an absolute without balancing against potential benefits or considering safeguards (confidentiality, limited-purpose testing). As framed, it is weak.Argument II: Demonstrates a concrete, widely recognized benefit—early detection and counseling lower risks of severe conditions (e.g., certain genetic disorders, infectious diseases) in children. The causal link between compulsory screening and reduced risk is clear. Hence, strong.
Verification / Alternative check:
Public-health precedents (prenatal screening, premarital counseling in some jurisdictions) aim to reduce serious health burdens—supporting the reasoning of Argument II.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only I strong / Either / Neither / Both: These misjudge the relative strength; only II provides a compelling, consequential rationale aligned with the policy goal.
Common Pitfalls:
Treating privacy as absolute without considering regulated, confidential medical processes designed to protect rights.
Final Answer:
Only argument II is strong
Discussion & Comments