Statement : Should petroleum products be brought under Goods and Services Tax (GST) ?
Argument I : Yes, the petroleum products should be brought under Goods and Services Tax (GST), it will boost the economy of the country.
Argument II : No, economy of all states will collapse.
Analysis of Arguments on GST for Petroleum Products
The question asks to evaluate the strength of two arguments regarding the inclusion of petroleum products under the Goods and Services Tax (GST).
Argument I Evaluation: Economic Boost
Argument I suggests that bringing petroleum products under GST would boost the economy. This is considered a strong argument because:
- A unified tax structure like GST can potentially lead to greater price transparency and reduce tax evasion.
- It simplifies the tax mechanism, potentially lowering compliance costs and improving the ease of doing business.
- Integrating petroleum into GST could lead to more efficient resource allocation and potentially spur economic growth through reduced cascading effects of taxes.
Argument II Evaluation: State Economy Collapse
Argument II claims that bringing petroleum products under GST would cause the economy of all states to collapse. This is considered a weak argument because:
- The statement is overly extreme and lacks specific evidence. While states rely heavily on taxes from petroleum products, a complete economic collapse is highly improbable.
- GST implementation often includes mechanisms for revenue protection or compensation for states, mitigating drastic impacts.
- The actual impact involves complex fiscal adjustments, not necessarily a total collapse. The argument presents a worst-case, unsubstantiated scenario.
Conclusion
Based on the analysis, Argument I presents a plausible positive economic outcome associated with GST implementation for petroleum products. Argument II presents an extreme and likely exaggerated negative consequence without sufficient justification. Therefore, only Argument I is strong.
Important Questions from Statements and Arguments
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.A question is given followed by two arguments. Decide which of the arguments is/are strong with respect to the question.
Question:
Should plastic bags be banned in India?
Arguments:
I. Yes, it is one of the sources of pollution and causes many diseases.
II. No, other alternatives of plastic may not be that colourful and attractive.A question is given followed by two arguments. Decide which of the arguments is/are strong with respect to the question.
Question:
Should all criminals be given severe punishments?
Arguments:
1. Yes. It will induce fear in criminals and crime would reduce greatly.
2. No. Human life is precious, and criminals should also be given a chance to improve.
A question is given followed by two arguments. Decide which of the arguments is/are strong with respect to the question.
Question:
Are joint families better than nuclear families?
Arguments:
1. Yes, joint families ensure security and the burden of work is shared.
2. No, nuclear families ensure freedom and there is no disturbance.
A question is given followed by two arguments. Decide which of the arguments is/are strong with respect to the question.
Question:
Should vegetarian food be banned in India?
Arguments:
I. No, it is cheap source of protein and other minerals and a lot of people can afford it.
II. No, it will violate people's freedom.
