Logical Reasoning - Statement and Argument - Discussion

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.

This conclusion is IDEOLOGICAL, and does not LOGICALLY follow. There are two opposing ETHICS -- One of them is to encourage self-sufficiency (Gandhi) which supports argument II. The other is the comparative advantage theory of economics, which supports argument I. It is not logically true that acquiring imports will prevent shortages, since exported goods might be foods/grains, while imports might be luxuries.

@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".

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.

@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.

Author should have chosen option A because argument 1 gives a solution for shortage where as argument 2 doesn't tell a solution for shortage -it just tell have what you got. This is the only reason why argument 1 strengthens and argument 2 weakens. Hence option A.

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.

When most things are insufficient/shortage for internal use. Is the argument I holds strong only to earn foreign exchange ? How it is feasible to afford the internal shortage ? To my mind argument II is strong. Pl discuss.

Argument 2 is weak as exports of selective items which are not scarce will not harm India.["No. Even selective encouragement would lead to shortages." Doesnt hold]

Argument 1 is strong as it is basic economics.

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.