Analyzing the Strength of Arguments on Judicial and Police Reforms

The question asks us to evaluate the strength of two arguments regarding the urgent need for judicial and police reforms. We need to consider the statement and decide which argument is implicit or strong.

The statement is: Should there be an urgent need to have judicial and police reforms?

This statement proposes a question about the necessity and urgency of making changes to the judicial and police systems.

Evaluating Argument I

Argument I states: Yes, this will bring speedy justice, which will have a big impact in the society.

• This argument directly supports the idea of having judicial and police reforms.
• It gives a specific reason: these reforms will lead to speedy justice.
• It highlights a positive outcome of speedy justice: a big impact in the society.
• Speedy justice is a widely recognized goal for any effective judicial system. Delays in justice can erode public trust and have negative societal consequences. Therefore, achieving speedy justice is a compelling reason to undertake reforms.
• The claim that this will have a big impact on society further strengthens the argument by emphasizing the importance and widespread benefit of such reforms.

Argument I provides a clear, positive consequence that directly supports the proposition that there is an urgent need for these reforms. It links the reforms to a desirable outcome (speedy justice) with significant societal benefit.

Evaluating Argument II

Argument II states: No, there are other issues which have higher priorities.

• This argument opposes the idea of an urgent need for judicial and police reforms.
• It gives a reason based on comparing priorities: other issues are considered more important.
• However, this argument does not deny the potential benefits of judicial and police reforms or the problems they might solve (like delays in justice).
• Simply stating that other issues exist with higher priorities does not weaken the claim that judicial and police reforms are also urgently needed, perhaps for different, but equally critical, reasons (like ensuring rule of law, public safety, human rights, etc., in addition to speedy justice mentioned in Argument I).
• The statement of having 'higher priorities' is subjective and doesn't negate the objective urgent need or the significant impact that Argument I highlights for judicial and police reforms.

Argument II is a general statement about priorities that doesn't specifically address or refute the benefits or the necessity of judicial and police reforms themselves. It's a comparative argument based on unspecified 'other issues'.

Comparing the Arguments

Argument I gives a concrete and positive reason directly related to the function and impact of the systems being discussed (judicial and police). It provides a strong justification for undertaking the reforms.

Argument II offers a counterpoint based on competing priorities, which is a valid consideration in resource allocation, but it doesn't inherently mean the proposed reforms are *not* urgently needed or would not have a significant positive impact as suggested by Argument I.

In the context of evaluating the strength of an argument for the *urgent need* based on its direct support for the statement, Argument I is significantly stronger because it presents a direct, positive, and impactful consequence of the reforms (speedy justice and societal impact) which supports the idea of an urgent need.

Therefore, Argument I is considered strong.