Let us Practice - All Latest Questions

Though the reserves of coal are limited, yet stopping its use till alternate sources of energy have been discovered, is no solution to conserve it. So, I is not strong. It is true that we haven't till date found a renewable source of energy which is available in plenty and can substitute coal. So, II holds strong. Further, stopping coal mining would surely throw the engaged coal workers out of employment. So, III also hold strong.

The use of 'only' in I makes it invalid. Also, it is the duty of the government to save its citizens from intake of any harmful products, even if they like them. So, II does not hold strong. Besides, a product must not be banned unless its harmful effects have been proved. So, III holds strong. Lastly, we cannot blindly follow the decisions taken by other countries. So, IV also does not hold.

Clearly, a person committing a heinous crime like murder or rape should be so punished as to set an example for others not to attempt such acts in future. So, argument III holds strong. Argument I is vague while the use of the word 'only' in argument II makes it weak. Also, it cannot be assured whether a criminal is really repentant of his acts or not, he may also exhibit so just to get rid of punishment. So, argument IV also does not hold.

Clearly, our Constitution considers youngsters above 18 years of age, mature enough to exercise their decisive power in Government by voting. This implies that such individuals can also judge what is good or bad for them. Thus, argument I holds strong. However, at such places, youngsters may be leads astray by certain indecent guys and swayed from the right path into bad indulgences. So, IV also holds strong. Hiking the entry fees is no way to disallow them, and also the idea of imitating the western countries holds no relevance. So, neither II nor III holds strong.

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 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 fulfills the eligibility criteria, whatever be his extra merits. Hence, argument III holds strong.

Clearly, television offers educational programmes which are of great practical value to the students. So, it serves as a means ( but it is not the 'only' means) to educate the masses. Thus I holds strong while IV does not. Besides, the demerit of watching television, mentioned in II and III, may be done away with by allowing children to watch selected programmes on television, according to a set schedule. So, neither II nor III holds strong.

In present times, women are being imparted education at par with the men and are capable of competing with them in all professions and fields. So, argument I holds. Also, women cannot be confined to the household and kept away from the challenges of the outside world against their will. They too have the right to be self-dependent. Besides, present-day women are well looking to outside jobs together with the household jobs. So, argument III holds while II does not.

The use of the word "only' in argument I makes it weak. To bring uniformity in educational standards. We can have many universities all following same curricular and policies under on Board. Also, having one university will make the management of educational throughout the country almost impossible. So, argument II holds. Besides, it is the variation in the syllabi and assessment of different universities that makes their degrees incomparable. when the students from these universities come together to compete for a job on a common plateform. This problem can be eradicated by implementing this scheme. So, argument III also holds strong.

Ours is a secular state does not mean that religion and religious values should be eradicated. In fact, these inculcate moral values. So, argument I is vague while argument II is strong. Also, teaching religion can in no way hinder the students capability to face the challenges of the 21st century.

Clearly, none of the arguments provides a substantial reason either for or against the given statements. So, none of the arguments holds strong.