Logical Reasoning - Statement and Argument - Discussion

@All.

I don't think the argument 1 follows. Because no where it is said that only through exportation will be able to import, so having exportation as the only way to importation is not correct.

As well, the problem touches the issue of internal satisfaction, and the argument one does not take that into consideration.

Selective means the things which is produced at a large scale, fulfilling the needs in the country others can be exported rather than wasted or kept in cold storage. It will earn foreign currencies for that special budget year where the country can easily focus on things that is needed such as oil but not produced much.

Hence, statement 1 holds strong.

I think statement 1 is true because it is strongly recommended for a country to grow. And it is clear that statement 2 is not true because it is directly given selective things which is not necessary.

But they've said most of the things are insufficient for internal use itself,

Do they mean most of the things that we export are insufficient for internal use? Please explain me.

Yes, when most things are insufficient for internal use itself then why one must encourage Export. But doesn't that insufficiency be filled by earning forex reserves so we can import things?

So, I believe Statement 1 follows.

@All.

Exactly! The later part of the sentence says "when most things are insufficient for internal use". How can we be talking of export to pay for imports when the basic things required for use internally aren't enough?

In my opinion, 2 is not even a strong argument because some selective exports would not lead to so long as they are not part of the"major things that are insufficient for internal use".

When most things are insufficient to internal use how we can export it leads to the shortage. So how statement 1 is strong? So, it should be 2.

How can we say that 1st 1 follows because in the statement that's clear that insufficient things then we can export things? Please explain me.

Argument C is correct in my opinion. A nation's wealth Is mostly accumulated by what is sold domestically and globally these days. India, on the other hand, has enough number of people to sustain its own economy, but it surely wouldn't care for it because global trade is the only way to stay competitive in this globalised era. So, yes, if India only encourages only for the export, they might not have sufficient resources in their hands to feed its over-billion population. And also yes, like the argument I said, if most of the money earned from export should be spent on buying foreign items, India can succeed. Even if you just look at the number of people you can see how tremendously much amount of goods they can produce with less money, you will say this country needs to export, forsake of the only advantage that India has, cheap and giant labour force.

So, both the arguments are strong given that if each one was to hold different account and situation, each of them can be proven with enough evidence. However, if the both account is to be in the same situation where they both are situated either in anti-import or in anti-export policies, then either argument I is true or argument II is true.

Argument 1 doesn't seems to be strong because it is not totally related with Statement.