Difficulty: Easy
Correct Answer: Only argument II is strong
Explanation:
Introduction / Context:The question concerns judicial capacity and access to justice. We determine which argument is more compelling given systemic delays in courts.
Given Data / Assumptions:
Concept / Approach:Arguments that address the core public objective (timely justice) are strong. Generic cost objections, without weighing benefits, are weak.
Step-by-Step Solution:
Argument I: Weak. It labels spending as “waste” without analysis of social benefit or alternatives.Argument II: Strong. It targets the real problem—backlog and delay—by increasing capacity and access.Verification / Alternative check:Judicial reforms often expand benches, circuits, or specialized courts to cut pendency, supporting II.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Common Pitfalls:Equating any new expenditure with waste without evaluating public value.
Final Answer:Only argument II is strong
Discussion & Comments