Question 1

Statement–Argument — Should TV channels be allowed to telecast soft-porn films? Arguments: I. Yes. It will satisfy youthful impulses and thereby reduce offences against women. II. No. It conflicts with social values and may harm children who use TV …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Broadcast standards regulate adult content to protect minors and uphold community norms, while allowing adult choice via time bands, ratings, and access controls.Given Data / Assumptions:Television is a shared, easily accessible medium for households with children.Causality claims linking adult telecasts to reductions in offences require strong evidence.Policy tools include watershed timings, content ratings, and parental locks.Concept / Approach:Assess if the argument is evidence-based and aligned with core aims (child protection, community standards). Unsupported social-engineering claims are weak.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Argument I posits crime reduction via “satiation”. This is speculative and ethically dubious; there is no clear, reliable causal mechanism demonstrated here—weak.2) Argument II stresses harm to minors and social norms—recognised grounds in broadcast policy worldwide. It supports proportionate restrictions (e.g., adult-only windows, strong filters)—strong.Verification / Alternative check:Common regulatory practice focuses on protecting minors while permitting adult content under strict conditions—not open telecast.Why Other Options Are Wrong:“Only I/Either/Both/Neither” mis-evaluate the evidentiary basis and policy priorities.Common Pitfalls:Confusing adult VOD access controls with broadcast TV norms; assuming exposure reduces crime.Final Answer:if only argument II is strong.

Question 2

Statement–Argument — Should government hospitals charge user fees from government employees who pay income tax? Arguments: I. Yes. User fees can ease fiscal pressure and the revenue can fund better services for those in need. II. No. Charging tax-pa…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Health financing can mix general taxation with user fees, exemptions, and insurance. Equity, efficiency, and fiscal sustainability must be balanced.Given Data / Assumptions:Government employees are taxpayers; many non-employees are also taxpayers.User fees can generate earmarked funds but may create access barriers.Targeting (exemptions/concessions) is possible.Concept / Approach:Both fiscal logic (I) and fairness/affordability concerns (II) are policy-relevant. Their strength depends on design (exemptions, income tiers).Step-by-Step Solution:1) I argues for revenue and reallocation to the needy—relevant and potentially effective if implemented with equity safeguards.2) II claims injustice since taxes are already paid; if user fees duplicate burdens and deter care, the fairness concern is real—also relevant.3) Because both concerns can be compelling depending on context and design, “either I or II is strong” fits.Verification / Alternative check:Many systems waive fees for vulnerable groups while charging modest amounts to others, reflecting both arguments.Why Other Options Are Wrong:“Only I/Only II” ignore the opposing valid consideration; “Both” implies joint acceptance without resolving trade-offs; “Neither” dismisses relevant points.Common Pitfalls:Assuming user fees are either universally good or bad; neglecting exemption design.Final Answer:if either I or II is strong.

Question 3

Statement–Argument — Should the habit of classroom absenteeism be checked in educational institutions? Arguments: I. Yes. Otherwise the institute’s image in society will suffer. II. No. Checking absenteeism encroaches on individual liberty.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Attendance policies should serve learning outcomes and duty-of-care, not reputational optics or absolute claims about liberty in institutional settings.Given Data / Assumptions:Institutions set reasonable rules to meet educational goals.Student liberty is balanced with curricular and safety requirements.Effective arguments should address learning or welfare directly.Concept / Approach:Evaluate whether each argument is relevant and sufficient. Reputation alone (I) is not a sound educational rationale; absolute liberty (II) ignores legitimate institutional interests.Step-by-Step Solution:1) I: Focuses on image rather than learning or welfare—weak.2) II: Treats any attendance control as encroachment, overlooking reasonable academic requirements—weak.3) Since both fail to address core educational grounds, “neither” is correct.Verification / Alternative check:Sound policies cite pedagogy (interaction, labs) and safety, not image or absolute liberty.Why Other Options Are Wrong:They assign undue strength to weak rationales.Common Pitfalls:Arguing from reputation or absolutist freedom without educational basis.Final Answer:if neither I nor II is strong.

Question 4

Statement–Argument — Should children be completely prevented from using the Internet? Arguments: I. No. The Internet is an educational medium that blends learning with engagement. II. Yes. Pornographic and harmful sites strongly affect children; sur…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Child online safety policy balances access to educational resources with protections against harmful content, relying on supervision, filters, and literacy rather than absolute bans.Given Data / Assumptions:Internet provides extensive curricular and co-curricular learning opportunities.Harmful content exists but can be mitigated via controls and guidance.“Completely prevent” is an extreme measure.Concept / Approach:Strong arguments are proportionate and recognise practical safeguards. Overbroad prohibitions that deny significant benefits are typically weak.Step-by-Step Solution:1) I: Emphasises educational value—clear, relevant, and widely evidenced—strong.2) II: Though concerns are real, “complete prevention” is disproportionate. Appropriate response is supervision, age-gating, and literacy, not total bans—weak.Verification / Alternative check:Common frameworks promote parental controls, safe-search, and digital citizenship rather than absolute prohibition.Why Other Options Are Wrong:“Only II/Either/Both/Neither” misjudge proportionality and the educational case.Common Pitfalls:Equating risk existence with justification for total bans.Final Answer:if only argument I is strong.

Question 5

Statement–Argument — Should people be banned from providing services to more than one firm/organisation? Arguments: I. Yes. It will reduce unemployment to some extent by distributing work. II. No. Such a ban would frustrate skilled professionals and…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Many sectors rely on freelancers and multi-engagement professionals. Regulating secondary employment must consider labour rights, competition, and productivity.Given Data / Assumptions:Unemployment is structural; bans may not create qualified workers or demand.Multi-employment can raise utilisation of scarce skills.Conflicts of interest can be managed via contracts rather than bans.Concept / Approach:Argument strength depends on realistic causal links and alignment with labour-market efficiency.Step-by-Step Solution:1) I assumes a ban will redistribute jobs; it ignores matching, productivity, and demand. Weak causal logic—weak.2) II highlights negative impacts on skilled labour flexibility and morale, a recognised concern—strong.Verification / Alternative check:Standard practice uses non-compete, confidentiality, or hour caps where necessary, not blanket prohibitions.Why Other Options Are Wrong:They overstate I or understate II.Common Pitfalls:Assuming job “sharing” via bans increases total employment.Final Answer:if only argument II is strong.

Question 6

Statement–Argument — Should people be allowed to carry traditional arms during long train journeys? Arguments: I. Yes. It will reduce dacoity and chain-snatching on trains. II. No. Allowing arms will inconvenience passengers and worsen law-and-order…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Passenger safety on trains depends on trained security personnel, surveillance, and protocols—not civilian weapon carrying, which can escalate conflicts and accidental harm.Given Data / Assumptions:Trains are dense public spaces with varied passengers.Weapons increase escalation risk and complicate policing.Security can be improved via patrols, alarms, and enforcement.Concept / Approach:Assess whether each argument provides credible, proportionate risk mitigation.Step-by-Step Solution:1) I assumes civilian weapons deter crime; in confined transport, this may raise overall risk and lacks reliable enforcement logic—weak.2) II points to practical safety concerns and law-and-order management—strong.Verification / Alternative check:Transport security policy typically restricts weapons, favouring trained policing.Why Other Options Are Wrong:They misjudge proportionality and operational realities.Common Pitfalls:Assuming deterrence outweighs escalation risks in public transit.Final Answer:if only argument II is strong.

Question 7

Statement–Argument — Should there be a re-election if the winner’s candidature is cancelled? Arguments: I. Yes. The elected winner reflects the will of the majority; cancelling the candidature requires a fresh mandate to preserve democratic legitima…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:This item examines electoral legitimacy when the winning candidate is later disqualified. Core principles are popular mandate, fairness, and procedural integrity.Given Data / Assumptions:The winner’s candidature is cancelled post-result.Voters chose based on a slate that included the winner.Rules should protect public confidence in elections.Concept / Approach:A strong argument must align with constitutional-democratic norms. When a central fact (the winner’s eligibility) is invalidated, the original preference aggregation is distorted; restoring consent typically requires a new poll.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Argument I stresses democratic ethos: once the winning candidature is void, the majority’s choice no longer has a valid representative, so seeking a fresh mandate is logical and fair.2) Argument II claims “unfairness” to the runner-up. However, elections are not succession mechanisms; second place does not imply entitlement, because voters’ strategic preferences depended on the original field.3) Therefore, I is strong; II is weak.Verification / Alternative check:Comparative practice often orders re-polls or by-elections when crucial irregularities or disqualifications arise.Why Other Options Are Wrong:“Only II/Either/Both/Neither” misjudge legitimacy and treat the runner-up argument as sufficient, which it is not.Common Pitfalls:Assuming second place automatically reflects a legitimate fallback mandate.Final Answer:if only argument I is strong.

Question 8

Statement–Argument — Should India enact a law allowing mutual transfer of convicts between India and other countries? Arguments: I. Yes. It helps ensure the convict faces appropriate consequences consistent with the country whose law is invoked and …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Mutual legal assistance and transfer-of-sentenced-persons frameworks promote justice by enabling custody, rehabilitation, and sentence completion where it is most appropriate, while respecting human-rights safeguards.Given Data / Assumptions:Cross-border crime and mobility can frustrate punishment.Transfer regimes operate via treaties/statutes with due-process checks.Objectives include justice delivery, reintegration, and preventing safe havens.Concept / Approach:We test each argument’s relevance and sufficiency. If both independently advance legitimate policy goals, both can be strong.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Argument I: Aligns the place of sentence with legal responsibility and logistics (e.g., serving closer to family or supervision systems). Relevant and cogent—strong.2) Argument II: Addresses anti-impunity by closing refuge gaps and facilitating cooperation. Also relevant and persuasive—strong.3) Because each stands on its own merits and they are complementary, the correct outcome is “both I and II are strong.”Verification / Alternative check:Many jurisdictions employ transfer treaties alongside extradition and MLA to ensure effective sentencing and reduce absconding.Why Other Options Are Wrong:“Only I/Only II/Either/Neither” undervalue the complementary strengths.Common Pitfalls:Confusing transfer (serving sentence) with extradition (standing trial); both can coexist.Final Answer:if both I and II are strong.

Question 9

Statement–Argument — Should sex determination through ultrasound and female foeticide be made a non-bailable offence? Arguments: I. Yes. Prompt and stringent non-bailable provisions are necessary to deter gender-biased practices and protect the girl…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The issue relates to gender justice and deterrence against practices that skew sex ratios and violate bodily and child rights.Given Data / Assumptions:Sex-selective practices cause societal harm.Criminal law uses bail policy to balance liberty with deterrence and investigation needs.Proportionality and public interest matter.Concept / Approach:Strong arguments are rights-consistent and acknowledge harm prevention. Liberty is vital, but it is not absolute; it is limited to prevent rights violations of others.Step-by-Step Solution:1) I: Seeks effective deterrence for grave, systemic harm. It is relevant, proportionate in principle (subject to safeguards), and rights-protective—strong.2) II: Invokes undifferentiated “freedom,” ignoring competing rights and harms, offering no proportionality analysis—weak.Verification / Alternative check:Serious offences often carry stricter bail thresholds to deter crime and prevent tampering.Why Other Options Are Wrong:They elevate an unqualified liberty claim over concrete harm prevention.Common Pitfalls:Confusing absolute freedom with regulated liberty within a rights framework.Final Answer:if only argument I is strong.

Question 10

Statement–Argument — Should all universities be allowed to operate educational FM radio? Arguments: I. No. Universities might drift towards commercial use, undermining academic objectives. II. Yes. It will reduce the urban–rural information gap and …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Campus/community radio can disseminate lectures, career guidance, and local development content, complementing formal instruction.Given Data / Assumptions:Universities serve public-interest educational goals.Regulatory licences can impose non-commercial conditions and oversight.Rural outreach remains a key equity challenge.Concept / Approach:A strong argument should be realistic and policy-addressable. Potential misuse (I) is speculative and mitigable via licensing terms, audits, and penalties. The access benefit (II) is concrete and aligns with education policy.Step-by-Step Solution:1) I identifies a risk but offers no reason why regulation cannot prevent it—weak.2) II articulates a direct benefit—bridging gaps and improving reach—strong.Verification / Alternative check:Community radio frameworks commonly cap advertising and mandate educational content, addressing I while enabling II.Why Other Options Are Wrong:They undervalue the feasibility of regulating away commercial drift and the clear educational upside.Common Pitfalls:Letting speculative misuse outweigh implementable safeguards.Final Answer:if only argument II is strong.

Question 11

Statement–Argument — Is “Each one teach one” the best policy to spread elementary education in India? Arguments: I. Yes. If 60% literates teach 40% illiterates, universal coverage becomes plausible with minimal additional infrastructure. II. No. Peo…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The slogan proposes peer-driven literacy expansion to accelerate foundational learning, complementing formal schemes.Given Data / Assumptions:Large literate base exists that can tutor basic skills.Community models reduce marginal costs and expand reach.Participation can be flexible (evenings, weekends).Concept / Approach:Argument strength hinges on feasibility and alignment with enrolment/retention goals. Practical constraints should be weighed against scalable volunteerism and civic duty initiatives.Step-by-Step Solution:1) I: Presents a simple, scalable arithmetic of coverage and a plausible community-based mechanism—strong.2) II: Over-generalises that people lack time; ignores partial participation, incentives, and institutional support—weak.Verification / Alternative check:Adult literacy drives and volunteer tutoring have repeatedly shown adjunct value alongside formal schooling.Why Other Options Are Wrong:They inflate a defeatist assumption over a workable, supplementing strategy.Common Pitfalls:Assuming participation must be universal to be effective.Final Answer:if only argument I is strong.

Question 12

Statement–Argument — Should the minimum age (25 years) for entry to bars and pubs be reduced? Arguments: I. Yes. By 18–20 years, citizens vote and can distinguish right from wrong; denying entry is paternalistic. II. No. Social maturity and economic…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The policy balances adult autonomy against public-health and safety considerations (alcohol misuse, late-night hazards).Given Data / Assumptions:Age thresholds vary across activities (voting, driving, alcohol).Harm-reduction tools (ID checks, timings) can mitigate risks.Different jurisdictions calibrate thresholds differently.Concept / Approach:Both autonomy (I) and risk mitigation (II) are legitimate policy bases. Where both are reasonable, the correct evaluation is “either I or II is strong.”Step-by-Step Solution:1) I: Emphasises legal adulthood and capacity—relevant.2) II: Emphasises developmental and safety concerns—also relevant.3) Since both are persuasive yet conflicting value choices, either can be strong.Verification / Alternative check:Comparative law shows differing age limits, indicating both rationales are used.Why Other Options Are Wrong:“Only I/Only II/Both/Neither” misrepresent the policy trade-off structure.Common Pitfalls:Treating the threshold as purely moral rather than public-health policy.Final Answer:if either I or II is strong.

Question 13

Statement–Argument — Should police pickets on roads be disallowed from stopping buses to check travellers’ luggage? Arguments: I. Yes. Such checks inconvenience travellers and worsen traffic congestion. II. No. Blanket disallowance would unduly curt…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Roadside checks support interdiction of contraband, trafficking, and threats. The question proposes disallowing such checks for buses.Given Data / Assumptions:Public safety sometimes requires stop-and-check operations.Convenience and congestion concerns are real but can be managed by protocol.Proportionality and legality govern police powers.Concept / Approach:Weigh operational necessity against inconvenience. A categorical ban undermines safety tools, whereas regulated checks can reduce friction.Step-by-Step Solution:1) I: Focuses on inconvenience and traffic, not on safety outcomes; these can be addressed via scheduling, lanes, and rapid protocols—weak.2) II: Highlights that an outright prohibition would disable legitimate policing—strong.Verification / Alternative check:Standard practice authorises checks under legal safeguards (reasonable suspicion, documentation).Why Other Options Are Wrong:They overstate inconvenience while ignoring core security functions.Common Pitfalls:Equating better procedure with prohibition.Final Answer:if only argument II is strong.

Question 14

Statement–Argument — Should frequent strikes called by teachers be banned? Arguments: I. Yes. Repeated strikes severely disrupt students’ learning and harm their interests. II. No. If teachers serve students well, they should not be deprived of a pl…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Education is a time-sensitive public service; prolonged disruptions can cause irrecoverable learning loss.Given Data / Assumptions:Strikes are a form of collective bargaining.Student welfare and instructional time are paramount.Alternative grievance mechanisms (arbitration, negotiations) exist.Concept / Approach:Argument strength lies in prioritising child welfare while recognising legitimate labour rights.Step-by-Step Solution:1) I: Directly ties frequent strikes to student harm—strong.2) II: Asserts a platform is necessary but does not justify “frequent” strikes or explain why less harmful mechanisms would not suffice—weak.Verification / Alternative check:Many systems restrict strike frequency/duration in essential services while strengthening dispute-resolution channels.Why Other Options Are Wrong:“Only II/Either/Both/Neither” misjudge proportionality and the primacy of student interest.Common Pitfalls:Equating any limit on frequency with a ban on expression; the item asks about frequent strikes.Final Answer:if only argument I is strong.

Question 15

Statement–Argument — Should strict action be taken against people who use ancient rocks/heritage formations for advertisements? Arguments: I. No. It is the cheapest and most cost-effective advertising medium and should not be banned. II. Yes. Herita…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Conservation ethics prioritise protecting cultural and natural heritage over commercial exploitation.Given Data / Assumptions:Ancient rocks/heritage features are finite public goods.Defacement causes lasting damage and negative externalities.Alternative ad media exist without heritage harm.Concept / Approach:Argument strength rests on public-interest conservation versus private cost minimisation.Step-by-Step Solution:1) I: Appeals only to cheapness; cost alone cannot justify damaging shared heritage—weak.2) II: Protects irreplaceable assets and respects intergenerational equity—strong.Verification / Alternative check:Common statutes penalise defacement/graffiti on protected sites.Why Other Options Are Wrong:They elevate private cost savings over public heritage.Common Pitfalls:Ignoring negative externalities and cultural loss.Final Answer:if only argument II is strong.

Question 16

Statement–Argument — Should the constitutional provision allowing premature dissolution of a state assembly be amended? Arguments: I. Yes. The power has sometimes been used by ruling governments to serve partisan interests rather than constitutional…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Constitutional design must balance preventing misuse with retaining tools to resolve deadlock or loss of majority.Given Data / Assumptions:The dissolution power can be abused for partisan advantage.Genuine breakdowns of governance sometimes require early polls.Amendment options include stricter triggers, review, and safeguards.Concept / Approach:Both arguments raise valid, policy-level concerns: preventing misuse (I) and preserving necessary flexibility (II). Each is independently persuasive depending on institutional safeguards chosen.Step-by-Step Solution:1) I: Points to documented misuse; amending to add checks can protect constitutional morality—strong.2) II: Notes that eliminating or over-constraining the power may paralyse responses to genuine crises—also strong.3) Because both positions are legitimate and hinge on design choices, either can be strong.Verification / Alternative check:Comparative constitutions use confidence tests, judicial review, or super-majority triggers to reconcile these aims.Why Other Options Are Wrong:“Only I/Only II/Both/Neither” fail to capture the genuine trade-off.Common Pitfalls:Framing the question as abolition vs status quo rather than guardrails vs flexibility.Final Answer:If either I or II is strong.

Question 17

Statement–Argument — Should AIDS tests be made mandatory in India for brides and grooms before marriage? Arguments: I) Yes; India bears a high burden of HIV/AIDS, and pre-marital screening could help reduce transmission and protect spouses and futur…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:This Statement–Argument item evaluates public health reasoning versus concerns about dignity and stigma. Mandatory health screenings raise questions about proportionality, efficacy, rights, and the social costs of labeling. The task is to judge which argument is “strong,” i.e., relevant, specific, and policy-germane in advancing or rejecting the proposal.Given Data / Assumptions:HIV/AIDS remains a serious communicable disease with lifelong implications if untreated.Marriage is a context of intimate contact with potential vertical (mother-to-child) and horizontal (spousal) transmission risks.Screening accuracy is high when modern tests and confirmatory protocols are used.Policy can combine testing with counseling, confidentiality safeguards, and linkages to treatment.Concept / Approach:A strong argument should articulate a compelling public interest or a rights-based limitation with clear policy relevance. Argument I invokes disease control, risk reduction for spouses/children, and the opportunity to connect positives to therapy—core public-health goals. Argument II cites “humiliation,” which is a serious ethical concern, but as stated it neither proposes safeguards nor weighs the countervailing risk to uninformed spouses; it stays at an assertion level.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Identify the policy goal: reduce undisclosed HIV transmission in marriages.2) Assess Argument I: links mandatory testing to earlier detection and prevention → strong and relevant.3) Assess Argument II: flags dignity harms but offers no remedy (e.g., confidential counseling, informed consent variants) and does not outweigh public-health rationale → comparatively weak.Verification / Alternative check:Why Other Options Are Wrong:“Only II” ignores public-health imperatives; “Either” falsely elevates II to parity; “Neither” denies I’s clear relevance.Common Pitfalls:Equating stigma concerns with an argument to abandon screening, rather than to design it ethically (confidentiality and counseling).Final Answer:if only argument I is strong.

Question 18

Statement–Argument — Should there be a censor board to supervise advertisements issued by companies? Arguments: I) No; it is impractical to create separate censoring bodies for many different domains. II) Yes; several advertisements have shown conte…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Advertising can shape attitudes, especially among children and teens. Democracies typically balance commercial free speech with protections against deceptive, harmful, or socially corrosive content. The question weighs feasibility (Argument I) against demonstrated social harms (Argument II).Given Data / Assumptions:Advertisements reach mass audiences repeatedly and can normalize risky or objectionable behavior.Regulation could be a dedicated board or strengthened self-regulation with state oversight.Past controversies indicate gaps in current screening or post-factum enforcement.Concept / Approach:A strong argument should speak directly to public interest and policy effectiveness. Argument II highlights real, observable harms and justifies supervisory mechanisms (prior vetting or robust codes with penalties). Argument I merely asserts “impracticality” without showing why proportional systems (e.g., one national body, co-regulation, or tiered review for sensitive categories) cannot work.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Identify objective: protect consumers and social values from harmful ads.2) Evaluate II: specific harm → supports supervisory function → strong.3) Evaluate I: generic feasibility claim without analysis → weak.Verification / Alternative check:Why Other Options Are Wrong:“Only I” ignores substantive harms; “Either/Neither” misclassify the asymmetry in argument quality.Common Pitfalls:Assuming supervision equals censorship of all content; calibrated frameworks can target only risky categories.Final Answer:if only argument II is strong.

Question 19

Statement–Argument — Should students be allowed to work while studying? Arguments: I) Yes; many students lack the financial background to fund their education, and work makes pursuing studies feasible. II) Yes; vocational and practical experience bu…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Part-time work policies aim to improve access and employability. This question tests whether financial feasibility (I) and experiential learning (II) are independently persuasive grounds to allow students to work.Given Data / Assumptions:Education costs can be substantial relative to family income.Structured work (internships, apprenticeships, campus jobs) can complement learning.Safeguards (work-hour caps, academic minimums) can mitigate overload risks.Concept / Approach:Each argument should be assessed on its own merits. Argument I is strong because it removes a financial barrier to participation in education. Argument II is also strong because practical experience improves employability and deepens understanding, serving the educational mission.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Evaluate I: addresses equity and access → strong.2) Evaluate II: addresses quality and relevance of education → strong.3) Since both independently justify the policy, mark “either.”Verification / Alternative check:Co-op programs and sandwich courses internationally demonstrate the value of work-study models.Why Other Options Are Wrong:“Only I/Only II” ignore the other valid rationale; “Neither” contradicts wide empirical support.Common Pitfalls:Assuming unlimited working hours; sensible caps align work with academic success.Final Answer:If either I or II is strong.

Question 20

Statement–Argument — Should an employer have the right to terminate an employee on the ground of disability? Arguments: I) Yes; if a disability prevents the employee from performing essential duties, the employer’s objectives suffer and termination …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The issue pits managerial prerogatives against equal opportunity and reasonable accommodation. A strong policy argument must weigh practicality with fairness and non-discrimination principles.Given Data / Assumptions:“Disability” covers many conditions; many do not eliminate capacity to perform with adjustments.Workplaces can re-design roles, provide assistive devices, or reassign non-essential functions.Summary termination based solely on status risks unfairness and loss of talent.Concept / Approach:Argument II is strong: it centers accommodation and the ethical/legal expectation that disability alone should not be dispositive. Argument I is weak as phrased because it skips the duty to explore reasonable adjustments and alternative placements; only when essential functions cannot be performed even with accommodation would separation be considered, which is narrower than the broad “right to terminate.”Step-by-Step Solution:1) Identify principle: non-discrimination with accommodation.2) Evaluate II: aligns with fairness and practical adjustments → strong.3) Evaluate I: overbroad, lacks proportionality and due-process safeguards → weak.Verification / Alternative check:Modern HR practice emphasizes reasonable accommodation and interactive processes before contemplating termination.Why Other Options Are Wrong:“Only I” ignores accommodation; “Either/Neither” misclassify the asymmetry.Common Pitfalls:Assuming disability equals incapacity; many roles can be redesigned effectively.Final Answer:if only argument II is strong.

Statement and Argument Questions

Questions

Practice smarter