Bissoy.com
Doctors Medicines MCQs Q&A

In the question, a statement is given, followed by two arguments, I and II. 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, is a strong argument. Statement: Should New Delhi asked the Supreme Court to classify tobacco as “res extra commercium”, a Latin phrase meaning “outside commerce”? Arguments: Yes. Doing so would give the government the power “to regulate tobacco business and to mitigate evils” to safeguard public health. No. The measure would be “unreasonable” and would handicap the tobacco companies in their ability to trade tobacco products.

In the question, a statement is given, followed by two arguments, I and II. 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, is a strong argument. Statement: Should New Delhi asked the Supreme Court to classify tobacco as “res extra commercium”, a Latin phrase meaning “outside commerce”? Arguments: Yes. Doing so would give the government the power “to regulate tobacco business and to mitigate evils” to safeguard public health. No. The measure would be “unreasonable” and would handicap the tobacco companies in their ability to trade tobacco products. Correct Answer only argument 'I' is strong

The Argument 'I' is strong.

Classifying tobacco as “res extra commercium” would make the tobacco companies unable to use “right to trade” as an argument in the court of law against any rules and regulations enacted by the government against the use of tobacco. This would help the government in its initiative to lower the use of tobacco and to ensure public health.

Also, knowing that Tobacco usage is addictive and families of lower middle class and poor background go through a very difficult situation if any member of the family starts using a tobacco product, it is a good idea to make stringent rules and regulation against the use of tobacco.

Though argument II is also strong in that every company should have a right to trade, the problem if the commodity which the company trades poses a threat to the public health, it can’t be allowed. 

Related Questions

An Assertion (A) and a Reason (R) are given below. Choose the correct alternatives from the given options. Assertion (A): Classifying tobacco products as “res extra commercium”, a Latin phrase meaning “outside commerce,” would snatch the “right to trade” from the tobacco companies. Government of India has requested the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India to classify tobacco products as “res extra commercium”. Reason (R): Consumption of Tobacco is injurious to health and imposition of stricter rules and regulation on tobacco product is required.
In making decisions about important questions, it is desirable to be able to distinguish between ‘strong’ arguments and ‘weak’ arguments. ‘Strong’ arguments are those, which are both important and directly related to the question. ‘Weak’ arguments are those, which are of minor importance and also may not be directly related to the question or may be related to a trivial aspect of the question. The questions below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments a ‘strong’ argument is and which a ‘weak’ argument is. Statement: Should government ban tobacco completely? Arguments: I. Yes. Tobacco is harmful and can cause cancer. II. No. Tobacco industries are a great source of extracting taxes.  
In the question, a statement is given, followed by two arguments, I and II. 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, is a strong argument. Statement: Should 2-wheelers be exempted from the proposed Delhi ODD-EVEN scheme (vehicles with a license plate ending in an odd number would drive on the Delhi roads on one day and with a licence plate ending in an even number would be driven on the other day)? Arguments: I: No, 2-wheelers cause more pollution than cars. II: Yes, 2-wheelers are used by the lower middle-class people.
In the question, a statement is given, followed by two arguments, I and II. 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, is a strong argument. Statement: Should the privatization of every government bank be promoted? Argument 1: Yes. That would reduce the administrative burden on the government. Argument 2: No. That would weaken the financial condition of government banks.
In making decisions about important questions, it is desirable to be able to distinguish between ‘strong’ arguments and ‘weak’ arguments. ‘Strong’ arguments are those, which are both important and directly related to the question. ‘Weak’ arguments are those, which are of minor importance and also may not be directly related to the question or may be related to a trivial aspect of the question. The questions below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments a ‘strong’ argument is and which a ‘weak’ argument is. Statement: Should schools have a mental health check up every once in a while? Arguments: I. No. Kids don’t face mental health issues. II. Yes. Mental health is as important as physical health.  
In the question a statement is given, followed by two arguments, I and II. 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, is a strong argument. Statement: Should the sale of alcohol near highways be banned? Argument I: No, people should have the freedom to decide as it is their fundamental right. Argument II: Yes, 90% of road accidents involve drivers who are under influence of alcohol.
In the question a statement is given, followed by two arguments, I and II. 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, is a strong argument. Statement: Should eating Paan at public places be made punishable? Argument I: Yes, people eat Paan and spit and makes public places dirty.  Argument II: No, Indians love Paan.
In making decisions about important questions, it is desirable to be able to distinguish between ‘strong’ arguments and ‘weak’ arguments. ‘Strong’ arguments are those, which are both important and directly related to the question. ‘Weak’ arguments are those, which are of minor importance and also may not be directly related to the question or may be related to a trivial aspect of the question. The question below is followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a ‘strong’ argument and which is a ‘weak’ argument. Statement- Should the oil companies be allowed to fix the price of petroleum products based on market conditions? Arguments: I. Yes, this is the only way to make the oil companies commercially viable. II. No. This will put additional burden on the retail prices of essential commodities causing hardship to the masses.
In the question a statement is given, followed by two arguments, I and II. 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, is a strong argument. Statement: Should cameras be installed in public school class-rooms to monitor teachers? Argument I: No, This will violate privacy norms. Argument II: Yes, This will make teachers more accountable, increasing their productivity.
In the question, a statement is given, followed by two arguments, I and II. 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, is a strong argument. Statement: Should the US built a nationalised 5G network on its own? Arguments: Yes. There are serious concerns relating to the Chinese government’s influence into telecommunication network equipment markets and concerns relating to Chinese spying in the US knowing that the Chinese companies are really developed in the telecommunication network equipment markets. No. The proposal for the federal government to build a standalone network would be ‘expensive and duplicative’.