1. Directions : Each of the following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Is buying things on instalments profitable to the customer?
Arguments :
I. Yes. He has to pay less.
II. No, paying instalments upsets the family budget
a) Only argument I is strong.
b) Only Argument II is strong.
c) Either I or II is strong.
d) Neither I nor II is strong.
Explanation: In buying things on instalments, a customer has to pay more as the interest is also included. So, argument I does not hold. Moreover, one who buys an item on instalments maintains his future budget accordingly as he is well acquainted with when and how much he has to pay, beforehand. So, argument II is also not valid.
2. Directions : Each of the following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should Doordarshan be given autonomous status?
Arguments :
I. Yes. It will help Doordarshan to have fair and impartial coverage of all important events.
II. No. The coverage of events will be decided by a few who may not have healthy outlook.
a) Only argument I is strong.
b) Only Argument II is strong.
c) Either I or II is strong.
d) Neither I nor II is strong.
Explanation: Clearly, the autonomous status of the Doordarshan will be a step towards giving it independence for an impartial coverage. Autonomous status does not mean that the coverage will be decided by a few. So, only argument I holds.
3. Directions : Each of the following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should adult education programme be given priority over compulsory education programme?
Arguments :
I. No. It will also help in success of compulsory education programme.
II. Yes. It will help to eliminate the adult illiteracy.
a) Only argument I is strong.
b) Only Argument II is strong.
c) Either I or II is strong.
d) Neither I nor II is strong.
Explanation: Clearly, argument I gives a reason in support of the statement and so it does not hold strong against it. The adult education programme needs to be given priority because it shall eliminate adult illiteracy and thus help in further spread of education. So, only argument II is strong enough.
4. Directions : Each of the following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should new universities be established in India?
Arguments :
I. No. We have still not achieved the target for literacy.
II. No. We will have to face the problem of unemployed but highly qualified people.
a) Only argument I is strong.
b) Only Argument II is strong.
c) Either I or II is strong.
d) Both I and II are strong
Explanation: Clearly, instead of improving upon higher education, increasing the literacy rate should be heeded first. So, argument I holds. Also, more number of universities will produce more degree holders with the number of jobs remaining the same, thus increasing unemployment. So, argument II also holds strong.
5. Directions : Each of the following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should non-vegetarian food be totally banned in our country?
Arguments :
I. Yes. It is expensive and therefore it is beyond the means of most people in our country.
II. No. Nothing should be banned in a democratic country like ours.
a) Only argument I is strong.
b) Only Argument II is strong.
c) Either I or II is strong.
d) Neither I nor II is strong.
Explanation: Clearly, restriction on the diet of people will be denying them their basic human right. So, only argument II holds.
6. Directions : Each of the following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should number of holidays of government employees be reduced ?
Arguments :
I. Yes, our government employees are having maximum number of holidays among the other countries of the world.
II. Yes, it will lead to increased productivity of government offices.
a) Only argument I is strong.
b) Only Argument II is strong.
c) Either I or II is strong.
d) Neither I nor II is strong.
Explanation: Argument I is not strong because we should not copy other country. But II is strong because on reducing the number of holidays, the working time will be increased and so productivity will also increase.
7. Directions : Each of the following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should there be a complete ban on manufacture of fire-crackers in India ?
Arguments :
I. No, this will render thousands of workers jobless.
II. Yes, the fire-cracker manufacture use child labour to a large extent.
a) Only argument I is strong.
b) Only Argument II is strong.
c) Either I or II is strong.
d) Neither I nor II is strong.
Explanation: Argument I is strong because when manufacturing of fire crackers is banned, a large workers involved in manufacturing it, will be jobless but II is vague because to stop child labour, it is not necessary to close the industry.
8. Directions : Each of the following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should election expenses to Central and State legislatures be met by the government ?
Arguments :
I. Yes, it will put an end to political corruption.
II. No, it is not used in any country.
a) Only argument I is strong.
b) Only Argument II is strong.
c) Either I or II is strong.
d) Neither I nor II is strong.
Explanation: As parties who are rich, spend more money in conversing, banners etc., to support the position while other parties are not able to meet these facilities. Therefore, the election expenses met by the Government, will put the political corruption to an end. Hence, I argument is strong.
9. Directions : Each of the following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should the retirement age for academicians be raised to 65 years ?
Arguments :
I. No, this will be unfair to the non-academicians having lower age limit for retirement.
II. Yes, experienced academicians can greatly contribute to the nation's intellectual property.
a) Only argument I is strong.
b) Only Argument II is strong.
c) Either I or II is strong.
d) Neither I nor II is strong.
Explanation: Only I follows. Because in India all people are equal. If the retirement age for academicians is increased, this will be unfair to non-academicians. As far experiences is concerned, then it is for all people in their fields. Therefore, in such circumstances why only for the academicians retirement age is increased.
10. Directions : Each of the following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should the educated people work in villages ?
Arguments :
I. Yes, because they can revolutionize agriculture and revamp rural atmosphere.
II. No, the educated should be employed in cities only otherwise their education will go waste.
a) Only argument I is strong.
b) Only Argument II is strong.
c) Either I or II is strong.
d) Neither I nor II is strong.
Explanation: By working of educated people in villages, their education will not be wasted but their will be the proper use of their education. On account of their education they will revolutionize agriculture and revamp rural atmosphere.
11. Directions : Each of the following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should the practice of transfers of clerical cadre employees from government offices of one city to those of another be stopped?
Arguments :
I. No. Transfer of employees is a routine administrative matter and we must continue it.
II. Yes. It involves lot of governmental expenditure and inconvenience too many compared to the benefits it yields.
a) Only argument I is strong
b) Only argument II is strong
c) Either I or II is strong
d) Neither I nor II is strong
Explanation: It is not necessary that any practice which has been in vogue for a long time is right and it must be continued. So, argument I is not strong. Also, a practice must be continued or discontinued in view of its merits/demerits and not on grounds of the expenditure or procedures it entails. The policy of transfer is generally practised to do away with corruption, which is absolutely essential. So, argument II also does not hold.
12. Directions : Each of the following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Is paying ransom or agreeing to the conditions of kidnappers of political figures, a proper course of action?
Arguments :
I. Yes. The victims must be saved at all cost.
II. No. It encourages the kidnappers to continue their sinister activities.
a) Only argument I is strong
b) Only argument II is strong
c) Either I or II is strong
d) Both I and II are strong
Explanation: Both the arguments are strong enough. The conditions have to be agreed to, in order to save the life of the victims, though actually they ought not to be agreed to, as they encourage the sinister activities of the kidnappers.
13. Directions : Each of the following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should religion be banned?
Arguments :
I. Yes. It develops fanaticism in people.
II. No, Religion binds people together.
a) Only argument I is strong
b) Only argument II is strong
c) Either I or II is strong
d) Neither I nor II is strong
Explanation: Religion binds people together through the name of God and human values. But at the same time it may create differences and ill-will among people. So, either of the arguments holds strong.
14.Directions : Each of the following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should India become a permanent member of UN's Security Council?
Arguments :
I. Yes. India has emerged as a country which loves peace and amity.
II. No. Let us first solve problems of our own people like poverty, malnutrition.
a) Only argument I is strong
b) Only argument II is strong
c) Either I or II is strong
d) Neither I nor II is strong
Explanation: A peace-loving nation like India can well join an international forum which seeks to bring different nations on friendly terms with each other. So, argument I holds strong. Argument II highlights a different aspect. The internal problems of a nation should not debar it from strengthening international ties. So, argument II is vague.
15. Directions : Each of the following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should fashionable dresses be banned?
Arguments :
I. Yes. Fashions keep changing and hence consumption of cloth increases.
II. No. Fashionable clothes are a person's self expression and therefore his/her fundamental right.
a) Only argument I is strong
b) Only argument II is strong
c) Either I or II is strong
d) Neither I nor II is strong
Explanation: Clearly, imposing ban on fashionable dresses will be a restriction on the personal choice and hence the right to freedom of an individual. So, only argument II is strong.
16. Directions : Each of the following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should there be a maximum ceiling imposed on the earnings of an individual in an organization ?
Arguments :
I. Yes, this is the only way to create more opportunities for those who seek professional training.
II. No, this will dilute the quality of professional training as all such colleges may not be equipped to conduct such course.
a) Only argument I is strong
b) Only argument II is strong
c) Either I or II is strong
d) Both I and II are strong.
Explanation: Both the arguments are strong because by doing so, students will get more opportunities and it is also correct that without any affiliation the quality of training will decrease.
17. Directions : Each of the following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should the Government restrict all political and religious processions without prior permission of the government ?
Arguments :
I. Yes, such processions lead to riots many times.
II. No, this is against the human rights in a democratic country.
a) Only argument I is strong
b) Only argument II is strong
c) Either I or II is strong
d) Neither I nor II is strong
Explanation: Either I or II is strong. Generally the undesirable elements in processions do so wrong things with the purpose to disturb the peace. Hence restrictions for such processions is necessary. But in democratic country this is against the human race.
18. Directions : Each of the following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should India encourage exports, when most things are insufficient for internal use itself?
Arguments :
I. Yes. We have to earn foreign exchange to pay for our imports.
II. No. Even selective encouragement would lead to shortages.
a) Only argument I is strong
b) Only argument II is strong
c) Either I or II is strong
d) Neither I nor II is strong
Explanation: Clearly, India can export only the surplus and that which can be saved after fulfilling its own needs, to pay for its imports. Encouragement to export cannot lead to shortages as it shall provide the resources for imports. So, only argument I holds.
19. Directions : Each of the following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should all the drugs patented and manufactured in Western countries be first tried out on sample basis before giving licence for sale to general public in India?
Arguments :
I. Yes. Many such drugs require different doses and duration for Indian population and hence it is necessary.
II. No. This is just not feasible and hence cannot be implemented
a) Only argument I is strong
b) Only argument II is strong
c) Either I or II is strong
d) Neither I nor II is strong
Explanation: Clearly, health of the citizens is an issue of major concern for the Government. So, a product like drugs, must be first studied and tested in the Indian context before giving licence for its sale. So, only argument I holds strong.
20. Directions : Each of the following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should India make efforts to harness solar energy to fulfil its energy requirements?
Arguments :
I. Yes, Most of the energy sources used at present is exhaustible.
II. No. Harnessing solar energy requires a lot of capital, which India lacks in
a) Only argument I is strong
b) Only argument II is strong
c) Either I or II is strong
d) Neither I nor II is strong
Explanation: Clearly, harnessing solar energy will be helpful as it is an inexhaustible resource unlike other resources. So, argument I holds. But argument II is vague as solar energy is the cheapest form of energy.
21. Directions : Each of the following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should the railways in India be privatized in a phased manner like other public sector enterprises?
Arguments :
I. Yes. This is the only way to bring in competitiveness and provide better services to the public.
II. No. This will pose a threat to the national security of our country as multinationals will enter into the fray.
a) Only argument I is strong
b) Only argument II is strong
c) Either I or II is strong
d) Neither I nor II is strong
Explanation: Privatization would no doubt lead to better services. But saying that this is the 'only way' is wrong. So, argument I does not hold. Argument II also seems to be vague.
22. Directions : Each of the following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should internal assessment in colleges be abolished?
Arguments :
I. Yes. This will help in reducing the possibility of favouritism.
II. No, teaching faculty will lose control over students.
a) Only argument I is strong
b) Only argument II is strong
c) Either I or II is strong
d) Neither I nor II is strong
Explanation: Abolishing the internal assessment would surely reduce favouritism on personal grounds because the teachers would not be involved in examination system so that they cannot extend personal benefits to anyone. So, argument I holds strong. But it will not affect the control of teaching faculty on students because still the teachers would be teaching them. So, argument II is vague.
23. Directions : Each of the following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should all the unauthorized structures in the city be demolished?
Arguments :
I. No. Where will the people residing in such houses live?
II. Yes. This will give a clear message to general public and they will refrain from constructing unauthorized buildings.
a) Only argument I is strong
b) Only argument II is strong
c) Either I or II is strong
d) Neither I nor II is strong
Explanation: The demolition of unauthorized buildings would teach a lesson to the unscrupulous builders and also serve as a warning for the citizens not to indulge in such activities in the future. This is essential, as unauthorized constructions impose undue burden on the city's infrastructure. So, only argument II holds strong.
24. Directions : Each of the following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should there be a maximum limit for the number of ministers in the Central Government?
Arguments :
I. No. The political party in power should have the freedom to decide the number of ministers to be appointed.
II. Yes. The number of ministers should be restricted to a certain percentage of the total number of seats in the parliament to avoid unnecessary expenditure
a) Only argument I is strong
b) Only argument II is strong
c) Either I or II is strong
d) Neither I nor II is strong
Explanation: Clearly, there should be some norms regarding the number of ministers in the Government, as more number of ministers would unnecessarily add to the Government expenditure. So, argument II holds strong; Also, giving liberty to the party in power could promote extension of unreasonable favour to some people at the cost of government funds. So, argument I does not hold.
25. Directions : Each of the following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should foreign films be banned in India?
Arguments :
I. Yes. They depict an alien culture which adversely affects our values.
II. No. Foreign films are of a high artistic standard.
a) Only argument I is strong
b) Only argument II is strong
c) Either I or II is strong
d) Neither I nor II is strong
Explanation: Clearly, foreign films depict the alien culture but this only helps in learning more. So, argument I does not hold. Also, the reason stated in argument II is not strong enough in contradicting the ban. So, it also does not hold.
26. Directions : Each of the following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should an organization like UNO be dissolved?
Arguments :
I. Yes. With cold war coming to an end, such organizations have no role to play
II. No, In the absence of such organizations there may be a world war.
a) Only argument I is strong
b) Only argument II is strong
c) Either I or II is strong
d) Neither I nor II is strong
Explanation: An organization like UNO is meant to maintain peace all over and will always serve to prevent conflicts between countries. So, its role never ends. So, argument I does not hold. Also, lack of such an organization may in future lead to increased mutual conflicts and international wars, on account of lack of a common platform for mutual discussions. So, argument II holds.
27.Directions : Each of the following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should there be no place of interview in selection?
Arguments :
I. Yes, it is very subjective in assessment.
II. No. It is the only instrument to judge candidates' motives and personality
a) Only argument I is strong
b) Only argument II is strong
c) Either I or II is strong
d) Neither I nor II is strong
Explanation: Clearly, besides interview, there can be other modes of written examination to judge candidates' motives. So argument II is not strong enough. However, the interview is a subjective assessment without doubt. So, argument I holds.
28. Directions : Each of the following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should family planning be made compulsory in India?
Arguments :
I. Yes. Looking to the miserable conditions in India, there is no other go.
II. No. In India there are people of various religions and family planning is against the tenets of some of the religions.
a) Only argument I is strong
b) Only argument II is strong
c) Either I or II is strong
d) Both I and II are strong
Explanation: Family planning is an essential step to curb population growth. So, argument I holds strong. Also, family planning being against the tenets of some of the Indian religions, it is not necessary to make it compulsory. Instead, it can be enforced by creating public awareness of the benefits of family planning. So, argument II also holds.
29. Directions : Each of the following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should income tax be abolished in India?
Arguments :
I. Yes. It is an unnecessary burden on the wage earners.
II. No. It is a good source of revenue.
a) Only argument I is strong
b) Only argument II is strong
c) Either I or II is strong
d) Neither I nor II is strong
Explanation: Income-tax is levied so that every citizen can contribute a share of his earning towards the infrastructural development of the nation. So, argument I seems to be vague. However, income-tax is no doubt a good source of revenue for the government. Hence, argument II holds strong.
30. Directions : Each of the following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should there be a ceiling on the salary of top executives of multinationals in our country?
Arguments :
I. Yes. Otherwise it would lead to unhealthy competition and our own industry would not be able to withstand that.
II. No. With the accent on liberalization of economy, any such move would be counter-productive. Once the economy picks up, this disparity will be reduced.
a) Only argument I is strong
b) Only argument II is strong
c) Either I or II is strong
d) Both I and II are strong
Explanation: In the absence of such a ceiling, the companies would be involved in a mutual competition of salaries, in a bid to attract the most competent professionals. So, argument I holds. Also, the prospects of increase in salary would encourage the officials to perform better in the interest of the company they serve, which would otherwise not be so if a ceiling is imposed. So, argument II also holds strong.
31. Directions : Each of the following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should all the foreign investment be concentrated only in few States ?
Arguments :
I. No, this goes against the all round economic development of the country.
II. Yes, as most of the States do not have the requisite infrastructure to attract foreign investments.
a) Only argument I is strong
b) Only argument II is strong
c) Either I or II is strong
d) Neither I nor II is strong
Explanation: Harmonic development in all States is not possible so second argument is strong.
32. Directions : Each of the following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should there be only one rate of interest for term deposits of varying durations in banks ?
Arguments :
I. No, People will refrain from keeping money for longer duration resulting into reduction of liquidity level of banks.
II. Yes. This will be much simple for the common people and they may be encouraged to keep more money in banks.
a) Only argument I is strong
b) Only argument II is strong
c) Either I or II is strong
d) Neither I nor II is strong
Explanation: The proposed scheme would discourage people from keeping deposit for longer durations and not draw in more funds. So, only argument I holds.
33. Directions : Each of the following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should the sex determination test during pregnancy be completely banned ?
Arguments :
I. Yes, this leads to indiscriminate female foeticide and eventually will lead to social imbalance.
II. No, people have a right to know about their unborn child.
a) Only argument I is strong
b) Only argument II is strong
c) Either I or II is strong
d) Neither I nor II is strong
Explanation: Parents indulging in sex determination of their unborn child generally do so as they want to keep only a boy child and do away with girl child. So, argument I hold strong. Also, people have right to know only about the health, development and general well-being of the child before its birth, and not the sex. So, argument II does not hold strong.
34. Directions : Each of the following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should Government close down loss making public sector enterprise ?
Arguments :
I. No. All employees will lose their jobs, security and earning, what would they do.
II. Yes, in a competitive world the rule is survival is of the fittest.
a) Only argument I is strong
b) Only argument II is strong
c) Either I or II is strong
d) Neither I nor II is strong
Explanation: Closing, down public-sector enterprise ill definitely throw the engaged person out of employment. So, argument I hold strong. also, closing down is no solution for a loss- making enterprise. Rather , its causes of failure should be studied, canalized and the essential reforms implemented. Even if this does not work out, the enterprise may be privatized. So, argument II is vague.
35.Directions : Each of the following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should all the criminal convicted for committing murder be awarded capital punishment ?
Arguments :
I. Yes, this will be a significant step towards reducing cases of murder in future.
II. No, nobody has the right to take any person's life irrespective the acts of such individuals.
a) Only argument I is strong
b) Only argument II is strong
c) Either I or II is strong
d) Neither I nor II is strong
Explanation: Argument I is strong because by giving capital punishment to murderers, the cases of murdering will be reduced. Argument II is weak because by doing so there will be increase in such criminal cases day-by-day.
36. Directions : Each of the following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should Indian scientists working abroad be called back to India?
Arguments :
I. Yes. They must serve the motherland first and forget about discoveries, honours, facilities and all.
II. No. We have enough talent; let them stay where they want.
a) Only argument I is strong
b) Only argument II is strong
c) Either I or II is strong
d) Neither I nor II is strong
Explanation: Clearly, every person must be free to work wherever he wants and no compulsion should be made to confine one to one's own country. So, argument I is vague. However, talented scientists can be of great benefit to the nation and some alternatives as special incentives or better prospects may be made available to them to retain them within their motherland. So, argument II also does not hold.
37. Directions : Each of the following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should we scrap the system of formal education beyond graduation?
Arguments :
I. Yes. It will mean taking employment at an early date.
II. No. It will mean lack of depth of knowledge.
a) Only argument I is strong
b) Only argument II is strong
c) Either I or II is strong
d) Neither I nor II is strong
Explanation: Clearly, argument I is vague because at present too, many fields are open to all after graduation. However, eliminating the post-graduate courses would abolish higher and specialized studies which lead to understanding things better and deeply. So, argument II is valid.
38. Directions : Each of the following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should there be an upper age limit of 65 years for contesting Parliamentary/ Legislative Assembly elections?
Arguments :
I. Yes. Generally, people above the age of 65 lose their dynamism and will power.
II. No. The life span is so increased that people remain physically and mentally active even up to the age of 80.
a) Only argument I is strong
b) Only argument II is strong
c) Either I or II is strong
d) Neither I nor II is strong
Explanation: The age of a person is no criterion for judging his mental capabilities and administrative qualities. So, none of the arguments holds strong.
39. Directions : Each of the following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should new big industries be started in Mumbai?
Arguments :
I. Yes. It will create job opportunities.
II. No. It will further add to the pollution of the city.
a) Only argument I is strong
b) Only argument II is strong
c) Either I or II is strong
d) Neither I nor II is strong
Explanation: Opening up of new industries is advantageous in opening more employment avenues, and disadvantageous in that it adds to the pollution. So, either of the arguments holds strong.
40. Directions : Each of the following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should high chimneys be installed in industries?
Arguments :
I. Yes. It reduces pollution at ground level.
II. No. It increases pollution in upper atmosphere.
a) Only argument I is strong
b) Only argument II is strong
c) Either I or II is strong
d) Neither I nor II is strong
Explanation: Pollution at ground level is the most hazardous in the way of being injurious to human and animal life. So, argument I alone holds.
41. Directions : Following question consists of a statement followed by four arguments I, II, III and IV. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should trade unions be banned completely?
Arguments :
I. Yes. Workers can concentrate on production.
II. No. This is the only way through which employees can put their demands before the management.
III. Yes. Employees get their illegal demands fulfilled through these unions.
IV. No. Trade unions are not banned in other economically advanced countries.
a) Only argument I is strong
b) Only argument II is strong
c) Either I or II is strong
d) Neither I nor II is strong
Explanation: Clearly, trade unions provide a common platform for the workers to voice their demands and protests and thus ensure that they are not subdued or exploited. So, argument II holds strong, while I and III do not. Besides, the idea of imitation of other countries in the implementation of a certain policy holds no relevance. So, argument IV also does not hold strong.
42. Directions : Following question consists of a statement followed by three arguments I, II and III . You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should the public sector undertakings be kilo wed to adopt hire and fire policy?
Arguments :
I. Yes. This will help the public sector undertakings to get rid of non-performing employees and reward the performing employees.
II. No. This will give an unjust handle to the management and they may use it indiscriminately.
III. Yes. This will help increase the level of efficiency of these organizations and these will become profitable establishments.
a) Only argument I is strong
b) Only argument II is strong
c) Either I or II is strong
d) Only I and III is strong
Explanation: 'Hire and fire policy' implies 'taking up the performing employees and discarding the non-performing ones'. Clearly, such a policy would stand out to encourage employees to work hard and devotedly to retain their jobs and thus enhance productivity and profitability of the organizations. So, both arguments I and III hold strong. Argument II seems to be vague in the light of this.
43. Directions : Each of the following question consists of a statement followed by three arguments I, II and III . You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Is caste-based reservation policy in professional colleges justified?
Arguments :
I. Yes. The step is a must to bring the underprivileged at par with the privileged ones.
II. No. It obstructs the establishment of a classless society.
III. Yes. This will help the backward castes and classes of people to come out of the oppression of upper caste people.
a) Only argument I is strong
b) Only argument II is strong
c) Either I or II is strong
d) Neither I nor II is strong
Explanation: Clearly, capability is an essential criteria for a profession and reservation cannot ensure capable workers. So, neither I nor III holds strong. However, making one caste more privileged than the other through reservations would hinder the objectives of a classless society. So, argument II holds strong.
44. Directions : Following question consists of a statement followed by three arguments I, II and III . You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should there be a complete ban on genetically modified imported seeds?
Arguments :
I. Yes. This will boost the demand of domestically developed seeds.
II. No. This is the only way to increase production substantially.
III. Yes. Genetically modified products will adversely affect the health of those who consume these products
a) Only argument I is strong
b) Only argument II is strong
c) Either I or II is strong
d) Neither I nor II is strong
Explanation: Genetically modified imported seeds have been specially formulated to increase the yield and quality of produce. So, argument II is strong. Besides, increase in production holds much more significance than the sale of domestically produced seeds. Thus, argument I does not hold. Also, the genetically modified seeds result in a producer of finer quality which is no way harmful to the consumer. So, III also does not hold strong.
45. Directions : Following question consists of a statement followed by three arguments I, II and III . You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should the income generated out of agricultural activities be taxed?
Arguments :
I. No. Farmers are otherwise suffering from natural calamities and low yield coupled with low procurement price and their income should not be taxed.
II. Yes. Majority of the population is dependent on agriculture and hence their income should be taxed to augment the resources.
III. Yes. Many big farmers earn much more than the majority of the service earners and they should be taxed to remove the disparity.
a) Only argument I is strong
b) Only argument II is strong
c) Only II and III is strong
d) Neither I nor II is strong
Explanation: Clearly, if the income of farmers is not adequate, they cannot be brought under the net of taxation as per rules governing the Income Tax Act. So, I is not strong. Besides, a major part of the population is dependent on agriculture and such a large section, if taxed even with certain concessions, would draw in huge funds, into the government coffers. Also, many big landlords with substantially high incomes from agriculture are taking undue advantage of this benefit. So, both arguments II and III hold strong.
46. Directions : Each of the following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should system of offering jobs only to the wards of government employees be introduced in all government offices in India?
Arguments :
I. No. It denies opportunity to many deserving individuals and government may stand to lose in the long run.
II. No. It is against the principle of equality, does not government owe its responsibility to all its citizens?
a) Only argument I is strong
b) Only argument II is strong
c) Either I or II is strong
d) Both I and II are strong
Explanation: Merit, fair selection and equal opportunities for all - these three factors, if taken care of, can help government recruit competent officials and also fulfil the objectives of the Constitution. Thus, both the arguments hold strong.
47. Directions : Each of the following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should the vehicles older than 15 years be rejected in metros in India?
Arguments :
I. Yes. This is a significant step to lower down the pollution level in metros.
II. No. It will be very difficult for vehicle owners to shift to other parts in country because they will not get suitable job for their very existence.
a) Only argument I is strong
b) Only argument II is strong
c) Either I or II is strong
d) Neither I nor II is strong
Explanation: Clearly, 15 year old vehicles are not Euro-compliant and hence cause much more pollution than the recent ones. So, argument I holds. Argument II is vague since owners of these vehicles need not shift themselves. They might sell off their vehicles and buy new ones - a small price which every citizen can afford for a healthy environment.
48. Directions : Each of the following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should the tuition fees in all post-graduate courses be hiked considerably?
Arguments :
I. Yes. This will bring in some sense of seriousness among the students and will improve the quality.
II. No. This will force the meritorious poor students to stay away from post-graduate courses
a) Only argument I is strong
b) Only argument II is strong
c) Either I or II is strong
d) Neither I nor II is strong
Explanation: A hike in fees is no means to make the students more serious in studies. So, argument I is vague. However, with the increase in fees, poor meritorious students would not be able to afford post-graduate studies. So, argument II holds.
49. Directions : Each of the following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should the persons below the age of 18 years be allowed to join armed forces?
Arguments :
I. No. Persons below the age of 18 do not attain both physical and mental maturity to shoulder such burden.
II. Yes. This will help the country develop its armed forces which will serve the country for a longer time.
a) Only argument I is strong
b) Only argument II is strong
c) Either I or II is strong
d) Neither I nor II is strong
Explanation: The armed forces must consist of physically strong and mentally mature individuals to take care of defence properly. So, argument I holds strong. Clearly, argument II holds no relevance.
50. Directions : Each of the following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should all the infrastructural development projects in India be handed over to the private sector?
Arguments :
I. No. The private sector entities are not equipped to handle such projects.
II. Yes. Such projects are handled by private sector in the developed countries.
a) Only argument I is strong
b) Only argument II is strong
c) Either I or II is strong
d) Neither I nor II is strong
Explanation: Clearly, such projects if handed over to the private sector shall be given to a competent authority. So, argument I is vague. Also, imitating a policy on the basis that it worked out successfully in other countries holds no relevance. Thus, argument II also does not hold strong.
51. Directions : Each of the following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should the council of ministers once appointed be kept the same for the entire period intervening two elections?
Arguments :
I. No. Shuffling of ministers and portfolios is a healthy democratic process.
II. Yes. The ministers do not get a hold on their portfolio unless they are kept for a longer duration.
a) Only argument I is strong
b) Only argument II is strong
c) Either I or II is strong
d) Neither I nor II is strong
Explanation: Shuffling of Cabinet ministers is just not a regular process, but a step to ensure proper working and implementation of schemes and avoid corruption. So, none of the arguments holds strong.
52. Directions : Following question consists of a statement followed by four arguments I, II, III and IV. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should people with educational qualification higher than the optimum requirements be debarred from seeking jobs?
Arguments :
I. No. It will further aggravate the problem of educated unemployment.
II. Yes. It creates complexes among employees and affects the work adversely.
III. No. This goes against the basic rights of the individuals.
IV. Yes. This will increase productivity.
a) Only argument I is strong
b) Only argument II is strong
c) Only III is strong
d) Neither I nor II is strong
Explanation: The issue discussed in the statement is nowhere related to increase in unemployment, as the number of vacancies filled in will remain the same. Also, in a working place, it is the performance of the individual that matters and that makes him more or less wanted, and not his educational qualifications. So, neither I nor II holds strong. Besides, the needs of a job are laid down in the desired qualifications for the job. So, recruitment of more qualified people cannot augment productivity. Thus, IV also does not hold strong. However, it is the right of an individual to get the post for which he fulfils the eligibility criteria, whatever be his extra merits. Hence, argument III holds strong.
53. Directions : Following question consists of a statement followed by four arguments I, II, III and IV. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should India go in for computerization in all possible sectors?
Arguments :
I. Yes. It will bring efficiency and accuracy in the work.
II. No. It will be an injustice to the monumental human resources which are at present underutilized.
III. No. Computerization demands a lot of money. We should not waste money on it.
IV. Yes. When advanced countries are introducing computers in every field, how can India afford to lag behind?
a) Only argument I is strong
b) Only argument II is strong
c) Either I or II is strong
d) Neither I nor II is strong
Explanation: Clearly, the need of today is to put to better use the underutilized human resources. Computers with better and speedy efficiency can accomplish this. So, argument I holds, while II does not. Computerization is a much beneficial project and investment in it is not at all a waste. So, III is not strong. Further, development in a new field is not a matter of merely following up other countries. So, IV also does not hold strong.
54. Directions : Following question consists of a statement followed by four arguments I, II, III and IV. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should all the school teachers be debarred from giving private tuitions?
Arguments :
I. No. The needy students will be deprived of the expertise of these teachers.
II. Yes. This is an injustice to the unemployed educated people who can earn their living by giving tuitions.
III. Yes. Only then the quality of teaching in schools will improve.
IV. Yes. Now salary of these teachers is reasonable.
a) Only argument I is strong
b) Only argument II is strong
c) Either I or II is strong
d) None of these
Explanation: Only III is strong. The lure of earning private tuitions reduces the efforts and devotion of the teachers towards the students in schools. So, if tuitions are banned, students can benefit from their teachers' knowledge in the school itself. So, argument III holds strong while I does not. However, a person cannot be barred from earning more just because he already has a good salary. So, argument IV is vague. Further, the unemployed people thriving on tuitions can survive with the school teachers holding tuitions too, if they are capable enough to guide the students well. So, argument II also does not hold strong.
55. Directions : Following question consists of a statement followed by four arguments I, II, III and IV. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should education be made compulsory for all children up to the age of 14?
Arguments :
I. Yes. This will help to eradicate the system of forced employment of these children.
II. Yes. This is an effective way to make the entire population educated.
III. No. We do not have adequate infrastructure to educate the entire population.
IV. Yes. This would increase the standard of living.
a) Only argument I is strong
b) Only argument II is strong
c) Either I or II is strong
d) Neither I nor II is strong
Explanation: Clearly, today's children are to make up future citizens of the country and so it is absolutely essential to make them learned, more responsible, more innovative and self-dependent by imparting them education. So, argument II holds strong while I and IV do not. Besides, the goal of literacy cannot be denied for want of infrastructure. So, argument III also does not hold.
56. Directions : Each of the following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should judiciary be independent of the executive?
Arguments :
I. Yes. This would help curb the unlawful activities of the executive.
II. No. The executive would not be able to take bold measures.
a) Only argument I is strong
b) Only argument II is strong
c) Either I or II is strong
d) Neither I nor II is strong
Explanation: Clearly, independent judiciary is necessary for impartial judgement so that the Executive does not take wrong measures. So, only argument I holds.
57. Directions : Each of the following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should all the practising doctors be brought under Government control so that they get salary from the Government and treat patients free of cost?
Arguments :
I. No. How can any country do such an undemocratic thing?
II. Yes. Despite many problems, it will certainly help minimize, if not eradicate, unethical medical practices.
a) Only argument I is strong
b) Only argument II is strong
c) Either I or II is strong
d) Neither I nor II is strong
Explanation: A doctor treating a patient individually can mislead the patient into wrong and unnecessary treatment for his personal gain. So, argument II holds strong. Also, a policy beneficial to common people cannot be termed 'undemocratic'. So, I is vague.
58. Directions : Each of the following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should students take part in politics?
Arguments :
I. Yes. It inculcates in them qualities of leadership.
II. No. They should study and build up their career.
a) Only argument I is strong
b) Only argument II is strong
c) Either I or II is strong
d) Neither I nor II is strong
Explanation: Clearly, indulgement in politics trains the students for future leadership but It sways them from the studies. So, either of the arguments I or II can hold.
59. Directions : Each of the following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should the opinion polls predicting outcome of elections before the elections be banned in India?
Arguments :
I. Yes. This may affect the voters mind and may affect the outcome.
II. No. Such polls are conducted all over the world.
a) Only argument I is strong
b) Only argument II is strong
c) Either I or II is strong
d) Neither I nor II is strong
Explanation: The opinion polls may influence the thinking of an individual and thus divert his mind from his original choice. So, argument I holds strong. Further, blindly imitating a policy followed by other countries holds no relevance. So, argument II is vague.
60. Directions : Each of the following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should the political parties be banned?
Arguments :
I. Yes. It is necessary to teach a lesson to the politicians.
II. No. It will lead to an end of democracy.
a) Only argument I is strong
b) Only argument II is strong
c) Either I or II is strong
d) Neither I nor II is strong
Explanation: Clearly, with the ban on political parties, candidates can independently contest elections. So, it will not end democracy. Thus, argument II does not hold. Argument I does not give a strong reason.
61. Directions : Each of the following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should there be compulsory medical examination of both the man and the woman before they marry each other?
Arguments :
I. No. This is an intrusion to the privacy of an individual and hence cannot be tolerated.
II. Yes. This will substantially reduce the risk of giving birth to children with serious ailments.
a) Only argument I is strong
b) Only argument II is strong
c) Either I or II is strong
d) Neither I nor II is strong
Explanation: Clearly, such a step would help to prevent the growth of diseases like AIDS. So, only argument II is strong.
62. Directions : Each of the following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should there be a ban on product advertising?
Arguments :
I. No. It is an age of advertising. Unless your advertisement is better than your other competitors, the product will not be sold.
II. Yes. The money spent on advertising is very huge and it inflates the cost of the product.
a) Only argument I is strong
b) Only argument II is strong
c) Either I or II is strong
d) Both I and II are strong
Explanation: Clearly, it is the advertisement which makes the customer aware of the qualities of the product and leads him to buy it. So, argument I is valid. But at the same time, advertising nowadays has become a costly affair and the expenses on it add to the price of the product. So, argument II also holds strong.
63. Directions : Each of the following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should luxury hotels be banned in India?
Arguments :
I. Yes. They are places from where international criminals operate.
II. No. Affluent foreign tourists will have no place to stay.
a) Only argument I is strong
b) Only argument II is strong
c) Either I or II is strong
d) Neither I nor II is strong
Explanation: Clearly, the luxury hotels are a mark of country's standard and a place for staying for the affluent foreign tourists. So, argument II holds. Argument I is not a strong reason because ban on hotels is not a way to do away with the activities of international criminals.
64. Directions : Each of the following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should shifting agriculture be practised?
Arguments :
I. No. It is a wasteful practice.
II. Yes. Modern methods of farming are too expensive.
a) Only argument I is strong
b) Only argument II is strong
c) Either I or II is strong
d) Neither I nor II is strong
Explanation: Clearly, shifting agriculture is a practice in which a certain crop is grown on a land and when it becomes infertile it is left bare and another piece of land is chosen. Clearly, it is a wasteful practice. So, only argument I holds.
65. Directions : Each of the following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should our country extend generous behaviour and goodwill to our erring and nagging neighbours?
Arguments :
I. Yes. Goodwill always pays dividend.
II. No. Our generous behaviour and goodwill will be considered as our weakness.
a) Only argument I is strong
b) Only argument II is strong
c) Either I or II is strong
d) Both I and II are strong
Explanation: Clearly, a good behaviour may at some point of time lead to mutual discussions and peaceful settlement of issues in the long run. So, argument I holds strong. However, such behaviour may be mistaken for our weakness and it would be difficult to continue with it if the other country doesn't stop its sinister activities. Hence, II also holds.
66. Directions : Each of the following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should there be only one rate of interest for term deposits of varying durations in banks?
Arguments :
I. No. People will refrain from keeping money for longer duration resulting into reduction of liquidity level of banks.
II. Yes. This will be much simple for the common people and they may be encouraged to keep more money in banks.
a) Only argument I is strong
b) Only argument II is strong
c) Either I or II is strong
d) Neither I nor II is strong
Explanation: Clearly, the proposed scheme would discourage people from keeping deposits for longer durations (the rate of interest being the same for short durations) and not draw in more funds. So, only argument I holds.
67. Directions : Each of the following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should all news be controlled by Government in a democracy?
Arguments :
I. Yes. Variety of news only confuses people.
II. No. Controlled news loses credibility.
a) Only argument I is strong
b) Only argument II is strong
c) Either I or II is strong
d) Neither I nor II is strong
Explanation: Clearly, the variety of news helps people to develop their own views. So, argument I is vague. Also, controlled news shall be a partial produce. So, it loses credibility Thus, argument II holds.
68. Directions : Each of the following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should taxes on colour television be further increased?
Arguments :
I. Yes, Colour television is a luxury item and only rich people buy them.
II. No, Televisions are bought by the poor too.
a) Only argument I is strong
b) Only argument II is strong
c) Either I or II is strong
d) Neither I nor II is strong
Explanation: Clearly, taxes on an item cannot be increased or decreased on the basis of the financial position of the people who buy it. So, both arguments I and II do not hold strong.
69. Directions : Each of the following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should the educated unemployed youth be paid "unemployment allowance" by the Government?
Arguments :
I. Yes. It will provide them some monetary help to either seek employment or to kick-start some 'self-employment' venture.
II. No. It will dampen their urge to do something to earn their livelihood and thus promote idleness among the unemployed youth.
a) Only argument I is strong
b) Only argument II is strong
c) Either I or II is strong
d) Both I and II are strong
Explanation: Young people, who do not get employment due to the large number of applicants in all fields, must surely be given allowance so that they can support themselves. So, argument I is valid. However, such allowances would mar the spirit to work, in them and make them idle. So, argument II also holds.
70. Directions : Each of the following question consists of a statement followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a STRONG arguments and which is a WEAK Argument.
Statement : Should higher education be restricted to only those who can bear the expenditure?
Arguments :
I. Yes. Higher education is very costly; hence it should not be given free.
II. No. There are a large number of brilliant students who cannot afford to pay and they should be given higher education.
a) Only argument I is strong
b) Only argument II is strong
c) Either I or II is strong
d) Neither I nor II is strong
Explanation: For the all-round progress of the nation, all the students, especially the talented and intelligent ones, must avail of higher education, even if the government has to pay for it. So, only argument II holds.