Each question given below consists of a statement, followed by two arguments numbered I and II. You have to decide which of the arguments is a 'strong' argument and which is a 'weak' argument. Give answer: (A) If only argument I is strong (B) If only argument II is strong (C) If either I or II is strong (D) If neither I nor II is strong (E) If both I and II are strong.
Statement: Should a total ban be put on trapping wild animals?
Arguments:
1. Yes. Trappers are making a lot of money;
2. No. Bans on hunting and trapping are not effective.
Answer: D
Clearly, ban is necessary to protect our natural environment. So, none of the arguments is strong enough
Enter details here
Statement: Should we scrap the system of formal education beyond graduation?
Arguments:
1. Yes. It will mean taking employment at an early date.
2. No. It will mean lack of depth of knowledge
Answer: B
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
Enter details here
Statement: Should new universities be established in India?
Arguments:
1. No. We have still not achieved the target for literacy.
2. No. We will have to face the problem of unemployed but highly qualified people
Answer: E
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.
Enter details here
Statement: Should Government close down loss-making public sector enterprises?
Arguments:
1. No. All employees will lose their jobs, security and earning, what would they do?
2. Yes. In a competitive world the rule is 'survival of the fittest'.
Answer: A
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.
Enter details here
Statement: Should the practice of transfers of clerical cadre employees from government offices of one city to those of another be stopped?
Arguments:
1. No. Transfer of employees is a routine administrative matter and we must continue it.
2. Yes. It involves lot of governmental expenditure and inconvenience too many compared to the benefits it yields.
Answer: D
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
Enter details here
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 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 there be a complete ban on genetically modified imported seeds?
Arguments:
1. Yes. This will boost the demand of domestically developed seeds.
2. No. This is the only way to increase production substantially.
3. Yes. Genetically modified products will adversely affect the health of those who consume these products.
Answer: B
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
Enter details here
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 people with educational qualification higher than the optimum requirements be debarred from seeking jobs?
Arguments:
1. No. It will further aggravate the problem of educated unemployment.
2. Yes. It creates complexes among employees and affects the work adversely.
3. No. This goes against the basic rights of the individuals.
4. Yes. This will increase productivity.
Answer: D
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.
Enter details here
Statement: Should there be a total ban on tobacco products and smoking in India?
Arguments:
1. Yes. It is wrong to smoke away millions of money.
2. No. It will throw thousands of workers in the tobacco industry out of employment.
3. No. The government will lose huge amount of money as it will not earn by way of taxes on these products.
Answer: D
Clearly, smoking needs to be abolished because it is injurious to health and not only to save money. So, argument I is vague. Banning a product would surely render jobless the large number of workers involved in manufacturing it. So, argument II holds strong. Also, tobacco products are a source of big revenue for the government. So, argument III also holds.
Enter details here