Each question given below consists of a statement, followed by three or four arguments numbered I, II, III and IV. You have to decide which of the arguments is/are 'strong' arguments) and which is/are 'weak' arguments) and accordingly choose your answer from the alternatives given below each question
Statement: Should there be reservation of jobs in the organizations in the private sector also as in the public sector undertakings in India?
Arguments:
1. Yes. This would give more opportunities of development to the weaker sections of the society and thus help reduce the gap between the affluent and the downtrodden in India.
2. No. The private sector does not get any government assistance and therefore they should not be saddled with such policies.
3. No. Nowhere else in the world such a practice is being followed.
4. No. The management of the private sector undertaking would not agree to such compulsions.
Answer: A
The reservation of jobs in the private sector too would surely increase opportunities for weaker sections to improve their economic plight. Thus, argument I is strong enough. Also, private sector companies work on a good profit margin and they can and will have to accommodate such a policy if implemented. So, neither II nor IV holds strong. Further, just imitating other countries holds no relevance. So, argument III also does not hold.
Enter details here
Statement: Should government established higher level Institutes of Technology (IIT's) be privatized?
Arguments:
1. Yes. Privatization will make these institutes financially healthy, competitive and quality conscious.
2. Yes. Privatization is the key of the new era - can we survive without it?
3. No. Standard of education of these institutes will fall.
Answer: C
Clearly, privatization leads to betterment in a bid to win over the others in the field and earn both good reputation and money. So, argument I holds strong. Besides, privatization cannot be opted for just because it is the present trend. Also, privatization would, in no way, deteriorate the educational standards. So, neither II nor III holds
Enter details here
Statement: Should the consumption of aerated drinks be banned in India?
Arguments:
1. Yes. This is the only way to reduce the risk of exposing people to some diseases.
2. No. Each individual should have right to choose what he wants.
3. No. There is no confirmed evidence that such products have adverse effects on human body.
4. Yes. It is banned in many other countries also.
Answer: C
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.
Enter details here
Statement: Should India go in for computerization in all possible sectors?
Arguments:
1.Yes. It will bring efficiency and accuracy in the work.
2. No. It will be an injustice to the monumental human resources which are at present underutilized.
3. No. Computerization demands a lot of money. We should not waste money on it.
4. Yes. When advanced countries are introducing computers in every field, how can India afford to lag behind?
Answer: A
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.
Enter details here
Statement: Should religion be taught in our schools?
Arguments:
1. No. Ours is a secular state.
2. Yes. Teaching religion helps inculcate moral values among children.
3. No. How can one dream of such a step when we want the young generation to fulfil its role in the 21st century.
Answer: D
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 student's capability to face the challenges of the 21st century
Enter details here
Statement: Should all the school teachers be debarred from giving private tuitions?
Arguments:
1. No. The needy students will be deprived of the expertise of these teachers.
2. Yes. This is an injustice to the unemployed educated people who can earn their living by giving tuitions.
3. Yes. Only then the quality of teaching in schools will improve.
4. Yes. Now salary of these teachers is reasonable
Answer: E
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
Enter details here
Statement: Should women be given equal opportunity in the matter of employment in every field?
Arguments:
1. Yes. They are equally capable.
2. No. They have to shoulder household responsibilities.
3. Yes. They should also go into the outside world.
Answer: D
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.
Enter details here
Statement: Should workers/employees be allowed to participate in the management of factories in India?
Arguments:
1. Yes. It is the present management theory.
2. No. Many workers are illiterate and so their contributions will not be of any value.
3. Yes. Employees-owned companies generally have higher productivity.
4. No. Employee-union ownership drives up salaries and wages.
Answer: C
Argument I in support does not provide a valid reason for the pursuance of the policy. So, it is vague. Argument II provides a valid reason, as literacy is an essential criteria to take proper decisions on policy matters regarding management of factories. Besides, workers, if involved in management, would surely be motivated to work more devotedly, thus enhancing productivity. So, both II and III follow. IV provides a reason too feeble in the light of facts given in II and III. So, IV also does not hold strong
Enter details here
Statement: Should administrative officers be transferred after one or two years?
Arguments:
1. Yes. They get friendly with local people and are manipulated by them.
2. No. By the time their policies and schemes start taking shape, they have to leave.
3. No. This will create a lot of administrative hassles and cause a lot of inconvenience to the officers.
Answer: C
Clearly, the acquaintance of administrative officers with the local people poses no harm. So, argument I is vague. However, both II and III hold strong, because making transfers too often would neither give them enough time to settle down comfortably in a new place, nor enable them to formulate and implement their policies in toto. This would also be administratively impossible
Enter details here
Statement: Should children be prevented completely from watching television?
Arguments:
1. No. We get vital information regarding education through television.
2. Yes. It hampers the study of children.
3. Yes. Young children are misguided by certain programmes featuring sex and violence.
4. No. This is the only way to educate the masses.
Answer: B
Clearly, television offers various 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 demerits 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.
Enter details here