Question

Country X is rich in flora and fauna and is considered one of the most beautiful places in the world. However, its economy has been struggling in recent times due to a recession. To address this, the government is considering transforming some of its scenic destinations into tourist attractions, intending to generate revenue and improve the country's economic condition. Should the government proceed with this plan?
Arguments:
I. Yes, turning these destinations into tourist spots will attract more foreign visitors, leading to an economic boost.
II. No, it will negatively impact the environment, as heavy tourism may result in population migration and a high influx of visitors, which could harm the country's flora and fauna.
III. No, there are other ways to improve the country's economy without relying on tourism.
IV. Yes, tourism helped boost the economy of neighbouring country Y last year, which was also facing a recession.

• A. Only argument IV is strong
• B. Only argument II is strong
• C. Arguments I and II are strong
• D. Arguments I, II, and IV are strong
• E. Arguments II and III are strong

Hint:

Judge each argument against two checks: does it directly and specifically address this exact situation rather than making a generic claim, and does it rest on a realistic basis rather than pure speculation? An argument that fails either check is weak, even if it sounds reasonable on the surface.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is D

Step 1: Understand the core issue.
The government is considering tourism development as a means to overcome an economic recession, but must balance economic benefits with environmental concerns.
Step 2: Evaluate each argument.
Argument I is strong because increased tourism can logically lead to higher revenue and economic improvement.
Argument II is also strong, as environmental degradation due to excessive tourism is a valid and realistic concern, especially for a country rich in flora and fauna.
Argument III is weak because it is vague and does not directly address why tourism should not be pursued in this specific case.
Argument IV is strong since it provides a relevant real-world example where tourism helped a neighbouring country recover economically.
Step 3: Identify the correct combination.
Arguments I, II, and IV are all logical, relevant, and directly related to the issue under discussion.
Final Answer:
\[ \boxed{\text{Option (D)}} \]

Answer 2

Concept:

• A "strong" argument in these Critical Reasoning questions must pass two checks: it must be directly and specifically relevant to the exact issue being debated (not a vague generality), and it must rest on a realistic, reasonable basis rather than mere possibility or speculation.
• Apply both checks to every Roman numeral systematically instead of judging "strong" or "weak" by impression; an argument that fails either check is weak.

Step 1: Test argument I: tourism will attract foreign visitors and boost the economy.
Relevance: it directly addresses the stated goal of fixing the recession through tourism revenue. Realistic basis: tourist spending generating revenue is a standard economic mechanism. It passes both checks -- I is strong.

Step 2: Test argument II: heavy tourism will harm the environment.
Relevance: the passage specifically describes the country as rich in flora and fauna, so environmental damage is a realistic and specific cost of exactly this plan. Realistic basis: ecological strain from heavy tourist inflow is a well-documented effect. It passes both checks -- II is strong.

Step 3: Test argument III: other ways exist to improve the economy.
Relevance: it does not engage with this specific plan at all -- it only asserts that alternatives exist, without naming or evaluating any of them, so it fails the specificity check. III is weak.

Step 4: Test argument IV: tourism helped neighbouring country Y last year.
Relevance: it offers a directly comparable real-world precedent under similar conditions, a neighbouring country facing a similar recession. Realistic basis: a real precedent is solid evidence, not speculation. It passes both checks -- IV is strong.

Step 5: Collect every argument that passed both checks.
Arguments I, II and IV pass both tests, while III fails the relevance check.

Final Answer: Arguments I, II, and IV are strong (Option D)