Industrial relations – Should trade unions be banned completely? Arguments to evaluate: I. Yes, then workers can concentrate on production. II. No, unions are the key channel for employees to present demands to management. III. Yes, employees get.

Question

Solve this multiple-choice question and choose the correct option.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:This argument analysis concerns banning trade unions outright. We must decide which arguments are logically strong and policy-relevant. Given Data / Assumptions: Total ban under consideration, not regulation or reform. Legitimate purposes of unions: representation, bargaining, dispute resolution. Abuses, if any, can be addressed by law rather than abolition. Concept / Approach:Strong arguments must be substantive and non-extreme. A channel for employee voice is essential for fair industrial relations; production focus and foreign practices, as stated, are not decisive justifications for a total ban. Step-by-Step Solution: I: Weak. Claims workers will “concentrate on production” post-ban are speculative and ignore the need for grievance redressal.II: Strong. Unions are a legitimate mechanism for collective bargaining; banning them removes a critical voice channel.III: Weak. “Illegal demands” can be checked by law; isolated misuse does not justify a complete ban.IV: Weak as framed. An appeal to foreign practice does not, by itself, establish a policy case. Verification / Alternative check: Best practice recommends fair regulation of unions and bargaining frameworks, not abolition. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Any option including I or III treats speculative or overgeneral claims as strong; IV is non-sequitur by itself. Common Pitfalls: Confusing reform/regulation with prohibition; assuming productivity rises simply by silencing worker voice. Final Answer:Only II is strong

More Questions from Statement and Argument

Discussion & Comments