Statement and Arguments - Base Level
Practice and master this topic with our carefully crafted questions.
Study the following instructions carefully and then answer the questions that follow.
In making decisions about important questions it is desirable that a candidate is able to distinguish between 'strong' and 'weak' arguments so far as they relate to the questions.
'Weak' arguments may not be directly related to the questions and may be of minor importance or may be related to the trivial aspect of the question.
Each question below is followed by two arguments I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a 'strong' argument and which is a 'weak' argument.
Give Answer
(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
(e) Both I and II are strong
Statement: Should we scrap the 'public Distribution System' in India ?
Arguments:
(I) Yes. Protectionism is over, everyone must get bread on his/her own.
(II) Yes. The poor do not get any benefit because of corruption.
The Public Distribution System is indeed necessary to provide basic amenities to the economically backward sections of population. So, argument I is vague. Also, if the objectives of a system are not fulfilled because of corruption, then getting rid of the system is no solution. Instead, efforts should be made to end corruption and extend its benefits to the people for which it is meant. So, argument II also does not hold.
Statement: Should non-vegetarian food be totally banned in our country ?
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.
Parent indulging in sex determination of their unborn child generally do so as they want to keep only a boy child and do away with a girl child. So, argument I holds. Also, people have a right to know only about the health, development and general well-being of the child before its birth, and not the sex. So, argument I holds strong.
Statement: Should all the practicing 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 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.
Statement: Should Government close down loss-making public sector enterprises ?
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 of the fittest.
Closing down public-sector enterprises will definitely throw the engaged persons out of employment. So, argument I holds. Also, closing down is no solution for a loss-making enterprise. Rather, its causes of failure should be studied, analyzed and the essential reforms implemented. Even if this does not work out, the enterprise may be privatized. So, argument II is vague.
Statement: Should there be concentration of foreign investment in only few states ?
Arguments:
(I) No. It is against the policy of overall development of the country.
(II) Yes. large number of states lack infrastructure to attract foreign investment.
An equitable distribution of foreign investment is a must for uniform development all over the country. So, argument I holds. Also, no backward state ought to be neglected, rather such states should be prepared and shaped up to attract foreign investment as well. So, II does not hold.
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.
The age of a person is no criterion for judging his mental capabilities and administrative qualities. So, none of the arguments holds strong.
Statement: Should there be reservation in Government jobs for candidates from single child family.
Arguments:
(I) No. this is not advisable as the jobs should be offered to only deserving candidates without any reservation for a particular group.
(II) Yes. This will help reduce the growing population in India as the parents will be encouraged to adopt single child norm.
The Government has already made provisions for reservation of jobs for the economically backward sections, which is a must. So, abolishing the practice of reservation altogether has no meaning. Thus, argument I is vague. Also, more reservations would lead to non-recruitment of many more deserving candidates. Besides, such a reservation, if implemented, will cater to the job requirements of only a small section of population and not a major part of it. So, argument II also does not hold strong.
Statement: Should the railways immediately stop issuing free passes to all its employees ?
Arguments:
(I) No. The employees have the right to travel free.
(II) Yes. This will help railways to provide better facility.
The free passes given to railway employees is a privilege for them, not their right. So, argument I does not hold. Argument II seems to be vague.
Statement: Should all the annual examinations up to Std. V be abolished ?
Arguments:
(I) Yes. The young students should not be burdened with examinations which hampers their natural growth.
(II) No. The students will not study seriously as they will get automatic promotion to the next class and this will affect them in them future.
Clearly, neither the students can be burdened with studies at such a tender age, nor can they be left free to take studies casually, as this shall weaken their basic foundation. So, both the argument follow.
Statement: Should luxury hotels be banned in India ?
Arguments:
(I) Yes. They are places from where international criminals operate.
(II) No. Affluent foreign into a dialogue with neighbouring countries to stop cross border tension ?
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.