Given below is a statement, followed by two arguments, 1 and 2. You have to consider the statement to be true even if it seems to be at variance from commonly known facts. You have to decide which of the given arguments, if any, support(s) the given statements.
Statement: Should lotteries operated by the state be stopped?
Argument 1: No, government will lose revenue.
Argument 2: Yes, government should NOT promote gambling.
- AOnly argument 1 is strong
- BOnly argument 2 is strong
- CBoth arguments 1 and 2 are strong
- DNeither argument 1 nor 2 is strong
Solution & Step-by-step Explanation
Let's evaluate both arguments:
* Argument 1: This is strong because lotteries are a major source of non-tax revenue for state governments, which funds public services. Losing it represents a significant economic consideration.
* Argument 2: This is also strong because it focuses on social welfare, morality, and public health. Lotteries are a form of gambling, and a state promoting them can lead to social addiction and financial ruin for poor families.
Both arguments present valid, strong, and deeply impactful points from different perspectives (economic vs. social).
* Argument 1: This is strong because lotteries are a major source of non-tax revenue for state governments, which funds public services. Losing it represents a significant economic consideration.
* Argument 2: This is also strong because it focuses on social welfare, morality, and public health. Lotteries are a form of gambling, and a state promoting them can lead to social addiction and financial ruin for poor families.
Both arguments present valid, strong, and deeply impactful points from different perspectives (economic vs. social).