This is apropos a Business Recorder op-ed "A good beginning!" carried by the newspaper yesterday. The writer, Saida Fazal, seems to have failed to see a bigger picture when she argues that "The verdict has upset not only the affected party but also many among our liberal elites. Some of them have personal interests tied to the party and hence, understandably, are in distress. Others have genuine concerns, though not backed by persuasive arguments."

In order for persuasion to be successful, it must be based, among other things, on plain or ordinary good judgement and sound practical sense. A persuasive argument is a statement in which the person who advances his or her argument utilizes logic and reason to show that his or her argument is more legitimate than someone else's argument or idea.

That the Supreme Court verdict on the Panama Papers is weak, if not flawed, is a fact. The argument that the honourable judges of the Supreme Court had employed to disqualify Nawaz Sharif cannot be described as an absolutely persuasive argument.