Question

Should there be complete ban on manufacture of Fire crackers in India?

• A. Argument I is strong
• B. Argument II is strong
• C. Both I and II are strong
• D. Both I and II are weak

Hint:

In cause-effect and argument-based questions, an argument is considered strong if it is directly relevant, factually plausible, and has significant social, economic, or moral weight.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

Step 1: Understanding Argument I
Argument I states — "No, this will render thousands of workers jobless."
If a complete ban is imposed, the immediate socio-economic impact will be the closure of firecracker manufacturing units.
These units employ a large number of skilled and semi-skilled workers, many of whom have no alternative source of livelihood.
This will directly lead to mass unemployment in certain towns (e.g., Sivakasi in Tamil Nadu) where the economy is heavily dependent on this industry.
Loss of income will not only affect individual workers but also their families and the local market economy.
Therefore, the social cost of a complete ban is extremely high and must be considered a strong point against the ban.
Step 2: Understanding Argument II
Argument II states — "Yes, the firecracker manufacturers use child labour."
This addresses a serious ethical and legal concern — child labour is prohibited under Indian law and is a violation of human rights.
If the industry is found to be systematically employing children in hazardous working conditions, it raises a compelling reason for stricter regulation or even a complete ban.
Beyond the legal aspect, there are moral and humanitarian grounds — children lose education opportunities, are exposed to dangerous chemicals, and suffer health problems.
Thus, this argument is strong from a moral and policy-making perspective.
Step 3: Balancing both arguments
Both arguments address different but valid dimensions: one focuses on the adverse socio-economic consequences (Argument I) and the other on ethical/legal violations (Argument II).
Since policy decisions must balance economic realities with human rights, both arguments are logically strong in their own right.
Hence, both I and II are strong.
\[ \boxed{\text{Correct Option: (c) Both I and II are strong}} \]