Assessing Arguments on Publishing Articles by Deserving Authors

The question asks us to evaluate two arguments regarding the publication of articles, specifically whether only authors deemed 'deserving' should be allowed to publish. We need to determine the strength of each argument presented.

Argument (I): Difficulty in Identifying Deserving Authors

Argument Statement: "No, it is not possible to draw a line between the deserving and the undeserving."

• Analysis: This argument focuses on the challenge of defining and identifying 'deserving' authors. While creativity and merit can be subjective, systems and processes exist within academic and publishing fields to assess quality. Methods like peer review, editorial judgment, impact factor analysis, and reputation are commonly used to evaluate the worthiness of contributions and authors. The argument claims it's *impossible* to differentiate, which is a strong, absolute statement. Given that practical (though perhaps imperfect) methods for evaluation do exist, the claim of impossibility makes this argument logically weaker. The focus is on feasibility rather than absolute impossibility.

Argument (II): Paper Conservation Benefit

Argument Statement: "Yes, it will save a lot of paper which is already in short supply."

• Analysis: This argument presents a practical consequence of publishing selectively: saving paper, a finite resource. If a policy allowing only 'deserving' authors leads to fewer publications overall, it logically follows that paper consumption would decrease. In a world facing resource scarcity, conserving materials like paper is a significant and tangible benefit. This argument connects the proposed action (selective publishing) to a positive, real-world outcome (resource saving), making it a strong and relevant point in favor of the proposal.

Conclusion on Argument Strength

Based on the analysis of both arguments:

• Argument (I) is considered weak because it relies on an absolute claim ('not possible') that overlooks the existence of practical evaluation methods in publishing.
• Argument (II) is considered strong as it highlights a clear, tangible, and beneficial outcome (resource conservation) directly linked to the proposal.

Therefore, the conclusion that only Argument II is strong is the most appropriate choice.