Question

In the following question, a statement is given followed by some arguments. Study the statement carefully and mark the correct alternative.
Statement : Should all the youngsters below the age of 21 years be disallowed from going to a pub ?
Arguments :
I. No, it is not correct to prevent matured youngsters above 18 years of age, who can vote, from having fun.
II. Yes, the entry fee to such pubs should also be hiked.
III. No, there is no such curb in Western countries.
IV. Yes, this will help in preventing youngsters from imbibing unhealthy habits.

• A. Only argument I is strong
• B. Arguments I and III are strong
• C. Arguments III and IV are strong
• D. Arguments I and IV are strong

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

The statement under consideration is whether all youngsters below the age of 21 should be disallowed from going to a pub. We are given four arguments to analyze this statement. We need to evaluate which arguments provide a strong justification either in support of or against the statement.

Argument I: This suggests that it is inappropriate to prevent individuals over 18, who have the legal capacity to vote, from enjoying themselves. This argument has merit as it highlights the inconsistency in allowing certain adult responsibilities and rights, like voting, while restricting personal enjoyment activities. Therefore, this argument is strong.

Argument II: This states that the entry fee to pubs should be increased. This argument does not directly address the age restriction issue but rather discusses a financial aspect of pub access. Thus, it does not contribute towards the core issue of the age-based disallowance. Hence, this argument is weak.

Argument III: This argues against restrictions based on the lack of similar restrictions in Western countries. This reasoning is weak as it relies on external standards rather than addressing the local context or implications of such a restriction.

Argument IV: This proposes the age restriction as a measure to prevent unhealthy habits among youngsters. While it touches on a potential benefit, it assumes without evidence that such restrictions would effectively prevent these habits. Therefore, it lacks direct support of the core issue and is considered a weak argument.

After evaluating all four arguments, only Argument I, which addresses the inconsistency in legal adulthood criteria, presents a strong case against the age restriction.

Correct Answer: Only argument I is strong