[amp_mcq option1=”Only argument I is strong” option2=”Only argument II is strong” option3=”Either I or II is strong” option4=”Neither I nor II is strong E. Both I and II are strong” correct=”option2″]<\/p>\n
The correct answer is: Only argument II is strong.<\/p>\n
Argument I is based on the idea that protectionism is over and that everyone must get the bread on his\/her own. However, this argument does not take into account the fact that the Public Distribution System (PDS) is a means of providing food security to the poor. The PDS ensures that the poor have access to essential food items at a subsidized price. If the PDS is scrapped, the poor will be at a disadvantage and may not be able to afford food.<\/p>\n
Argument II is based on the idea that the poor do not get any benefit from the PDS because of corruption. This argument is more convincing than argument I because it takes into account the fact that there is corruption in the PDS. However, it is important to note that not all PDS beneficiaries are corrupt. There are many poor people who genuinely benefit from the PDS.<\/p>\n
Therefore, only argument II is strong.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
[amp_mcq option1=”Only argument I is strong” option2=”Only argument II is strong” option3=”Either I or II is strong” option4=”Neither I nor II is strong E. Both I and II are strong” correct=”option2″]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[719],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-42700","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-statement-and-arguments","no-featured-image-padding"],"yoast_head":"\n