Question:

‘Soft drinks have been shown by scientists to be bad for the teeth. Therefore, the government would be justified in banning all soft drinks from the Indian market.’ Assuming that the factual claim in the above argument is true, what else needs to be assumed for the conclusion to follow?

Show Hint

Always check what implicit rule connects premise to conclusion — that’s your assumption.
Updated On: Aug 11, 2025
  • The government is justified in banning anything that is bad for dental health.
  • Soft drinks are also bad for gastric health.
  • Dental hygiene is a matter of great concern.
  • No further assumptions are necessary.
Hide Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is A

Solution and Explanation

Step 1: Understand the logical structure Premise: Soft drinks are bad for the teeth.
Conclusion: Government would be justified in banning all soft drinks. Step 2: Bridge the gap To jump from "bad for teeth" to "ban justified", we need an assumption: \[ \text{If something is harmful to teeth, it is justifiable to ban it.} \] Option Analysis:

(a) Exactly bridges the gap. If government is justified in banning anything bad for dental health, then banning soft drinks logically follows. Correct.
(b) Irrelevant — gastric health is not mentioned in the argument.
(c) "Matter of concern" is too vague; doesn’t justify a ban.
(d) Assumption is needed to link cause to action; so (d) is incorrect.

% Final Answer \[ \boxed{\text{The government is justified in banning anything that is bad for dental health.}} \]
Was this answer helpful?
0
0

Top Questions on Verbal Reasoning

View More Questions

Questions Asked in CLAT exam

View More Questions