Question

The following question consists of a statement and arguments I and II. Choose the best option:
Statement: Should there be a compulsory medical examination of both the man and the woman before they marry each other?
Argument I: No, this is an intrusion to the privacy of an individual and hence cannot be tolerated.
Argument II: Yes, this will substantially reduce the risk of giving birth to children with serious ailments.

• A. Only Argument I is strong
• B. Only Argument II is strong
• C. Neither Argument I nor Argument II is strong
• D. Both Argument I and Argument II are strong

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

The given statement requires evaluating whether a compulsory medical examination should be mandated for both partners before marriage. We need to assess the strength of the given arguments based on their logical basis and relevance.

1. Understanding Argument I:
   • Argument I states that a mandatory medical examination is an intrusion into an individual's privacy and should not be tolerated.
   • This argument emphasizes the right to privacy, which is an important fundamental right. However, it falls short in addressing specific consequences or societal benefits or harms that might arise from such examinations conclusively.
   • While respecting privacy is essential, the argument lacks depth regarding potential benefits or societal impacts, making it weak in the context of the question's scope.
2. Understanding Argument II:
   • Argument II suggests that compulsory medical examinations could reduce the risk of children being born with serious ailments.
   • The argument proposes a perceived health benefit. However, it does not consider that many hereditary ailments might not be detectable through routine medical examinations or that not all ailments can be preemptively managed or prevented through such measures.
   • Without additional evidence or reasoning, this argument appears speculative rather than thoroughly strong.
3. Conclusion:
   • Since Argument I is based on an incomplete view regarding the implications of privacy, and Argument II relies on assumed yet unproven health benefits, neither argument sufficiently addresses the complexities involved or provides all-encompassing justification.

Therefore, the correct answer is: Neither Argument I nor Argument II is strong.