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 the education at all levels be offered only in vernacular medium ?
Arguments:
(I) Yes. This is the only way to enhance performance of the students.
(II) No. This will severely affect acquiring knowledge for want of good text books in vernacular medium.
Teaching in vernacular medium would surely make it easy for students to grasp. But the use of 'only' in argument I makes it invalid. Also, teaching in international language would open up more avenues for students - in procuring books and study material, in going abroad for studies as well as taking up jobs which require interaction with people of different nationalities. So, argument II holds strong.
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.
Clearly, a good behaviour may at some point of tome lead to mutual discussions and peaceful settlement of issues in the long run. So, argument I holds strong. However, such a 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.
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 shortage.
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.
Statement: Is pen mightier than a sword ?
Arguments:
(I) Yes. Writer influence the thinking of the people.
(II) No. With the help of physical force one can conquer all.
Physical force can accomplish a task by compulsion, while the influential writings can mould the thinking of an individual and change his discretion into accomplishing the task willfully. So, only argument I holds strong.
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 upto the age of 80.
The age of a person is no criterion for judging his mental capabilities and administrative qualities. So, none of the argument hold strong.
Statement: Should there be only one rate of interest for term deposits of varying duration in banks ?
Arguments:
(I) No. People well refrain from keeping money for longer duration resulting into reduction of Liquidity level of the banks.
(II) Yes. This will be much simple for the common people and they may be encouraged to keep more money in banks.
Clearly, the proposed scheme would discourage people from keeping deposits for larger duration( the rate of interest being the same for shorter duration) and not draw in more funds. So, only argument I holds.
Statement: Should those who receive dowry, despite the law prohibiting it, be punished ?
Arguments:
(I) Yes. Those who violate the law , must be punished.
(II) No. Dowry system is firmly rooted in the society since time immemorial.
Clearly, law are made to ensure that no person persuses the practice. So, persons who violate the laws need to be punished. Thus, argument I holds. A wrong practice, no matter how firmly rooted, needs to be ended. So, argument II is vague.
Statement: Should all the infrastructural development project in India be handed over to the private sector ?
Arguments:
(I) No. The private sector entitles are not equipped to handle such project.
(II) Yes. Such projects are handled by private sector in developed countries.
Clearly, at the college level, all the students are assessed according to their performance in the University Exams and not on the basis of any criteria of a more intimate dealings with the students. So, argument i is vague, Also, imitating a policy on the basis that it worked not successfully in other countries, holds no relevance. Thus, argument II also does not hold strong.
Statement: Should Indian scientist 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.
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 scientist 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 withing their motherland. So, argument II also does not hold.
Statement: Should the opinion polls predicting outcomes 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.
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.