Arguments evaluation (global governance feasibility and risks): Should there be a single world government? Assess the strength of the arguments—(I) Yes: a world government will help eliminate tensions among nations; (II) No: such a government would inevitably be dominated by developed countries—using relevance, extremity of claim, and plausibility as criteria.

Given data

• Policy question: Whether a world government should be established.
• Argument I (Yes): A world government would eliminate tensions among nations.
• Argument II (No): Only developed countries would dominate such a government.

Concept/ApproachA strong argument must be directly relevant, logically sufficient, and avoid absolute or speculative claims. Evaluate each argument against feasibility, evidence, and whether the claim is overbroad.

Step-by-step evaluationStep 1: Argument I assumes a world government will eliminate tensions. This is an overpromise; governance design, enforcement, and divergent interests remain. Hence I is weak.Step 2: Argument II assumes inevitable domination by developed countries. While a risk, it is speculative and not a necessary outcome if representation rules are equitable. Hence II is weak.

Verification/AlternativeInternational bodies reduce conflict only under robust institutions and consent; neither argument addresses these design specifics, so neither is compelling.

Common pitfalls

• Accepting utopian or dystopian outcomes without mechanism.
• Confusing possibility with inevitability.

Final AnswerNeither I nor II is strong.