Directions: This question given below is followed by two arguments num...
Understanding the Arguments
When evaluating the arguments regarding whether the vehicle of anyone driving without a licence should be impounded, we analyze their strength based on legal principles and practical considerations.
Argument I: Strong Argument
- Legal Violation:
- Driving without a licence is a clear violation of the law.
- Laws are established to ensure public safety and accountability.
- Impounding the vehicle acts as a deterrent against unlawful driving behavior.
- Consequences of Lawbreaking:
- Enforcing penalties, such as impounding vehicles, reinforces the importance of adhering to legal requirements.
- It serves as a warning to others who might consider driving without proper documentation.
Argument II: Weak Argument
- Fear of Misplacement:
- The argument suggests that some individuals may not carry their licence due to fear of losing it.
- However, this does not justify the act of driving without a licence.
- Legal Responsibility:
- Every driver is responsible for ensuring they have their licence while operating a vehicle.
- The potential for misplacing a licence does not negate the obligation to follow legal norms.
Conclusion
In summary, while Argument I is grounded in legal principles and the necessity of upholding the law, Argument II lacks sufficient justification for allowing unlawful behavior. Thus, the correct answer is option 'A', which states that only Argument I is strong.
Directions: This question given below is followed by two arguments num...
Impounding the vehicle would act as a sufficient deterrent, and is not an extreme measure, as some might think. Thus, I hold strong. The fear of losing the licence is no excuse for not keeping such a vital identification document at all times, especially while driving a vehicle. Thus, II is weak.