Introduction / Context:
This problem tests legal reasoning and the relevance of cultural practices versus statutory prohibition. A strong argument must be consistent with the rule of law and the policy objective of the statute.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- Dowry is prohibited by law.
- I argues for enforcing the law against violators.
- II appeals to tradition (“since time immemorial”) as a reason not to punish.
Concept / Approach:
- Laws are enacted to change harmful practices. Tradition cannot legitimize an illegal act.
- Strong arguments rely on legality and public-interest goals (deterrence, protection).
Step-by-Step Solution:
I is strong: If a conduct is criminalized, punishment follows upon proof to deter and uphold justice.II is weak: Appeal to tradition is a fallacy and contradicts the purpose of the statute.
Verification / Alternative check:
Social reform laws (e.g., against dowry) are enforced despite historical prevalence; otherwise, the law is meaningless.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only II / Both / Either / Neither: These ignore that only I aligns with law and policy.
Common Pitfalls:
Confusing social prevalence with legitimacy.
Final Answer:
Only argument I is strong
Discussion & Comments