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 all the management institutes in the country be brought under government control?
Arguments:
1. No. The government does not have adequate resources to run such institutes effectively.
2. No. Each institute should be given freedom to function on its own.
3. Yes. This will enable to have standardized education for all the students.
4. Yes. Only then the quality of education would be improved.
Answer: A
Clearly, the government can pool up resources to run such institutes, if that can benefit the citizens. So, I does not hold strong. II does not provide any convincing reason. Also, it is not obligatory that government control over the institutes would ensure better education than that at present. So, both III and IV also do not hold
Enter details here
Statement: Should all those who are convicted for heinous crimes like murder or rape, beyond all reasonable doubts be given capital punishment or death penalty?
Arguments:
1. No. The death penalty should be given only in very rare and exceptional cases.
2. Yes. This is the only way to punish such people who take others' lives or indulge in inhuman activities.
3. Yes. Such severe punishments only will make people refrain from such heinous acts and the society will be safer.
4. No. Those who are repentant for the crime they committed should be given a chance to improve and lead a normal life.
Answer: C
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.
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 the number of holidays of government employees be reduced?
Arguments:
1. Yes. Our government employees are having the maximum number of holidays among the countries of the world.
2. Yes. It is a sign of British legacy, why should we carry it further?
3. Yes. It will speed up work and all the pending jobs can be completed well in time.
4. No. Employees must be given ample spare time to spend with their family
Answer: B
Reducing the number of holidays just because no other country gives so many holidays or it is a feature of a certain system which we have renounced, does not seem convincing. So, neither I nor II holds strong. However, this step would surely help to reduce the backlog of pending cases and dispense with the new cases much more quickly than before. So, III holds strong. Even if the holidays are reduced, only the avoidable or seemingly unnecessary ones shall be cut short and the national holidays shall still remain to enjoy. So, IV also does not hold.
Enter details here
Statement: Should all the youngsters below 21 years of age be disallowed from going to a beer bar?
Arguments:
1. No. It is not correct to prevent matured youngsters above 18 years of age who can vote, from having fun.
2. Yes. The entry fee to such pubs should also be hiked.
3. No. There is no such curb in western countries.
4. Yes. This will help in preventing youngsters from getting into bad company and imbibing bad habits.
Answer: D
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 lead 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.
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 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 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 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 the income generated out of agricultural activities be taxed?
Arguments:
1. No. Farmers are otherwise suffering from natural calamities and low yield coupled with low procurement price and their income should not be taxed.
2. Yes. Majority of the population is dependent on agriculture and hence their income should be taxed to augment the resources.
3. Yes. Many big farmers earn much more than the majority of the service earners and they should be taxed to remove the disparity.
Answer: C
Clearly, if the income of farmers is not adequate, they cannot be brought under the net of taxation as per rules governing the Income Tax Act. So, I is not strong. Besides, a major part of the population is dependent on agriculture and such a large section, if taxed even with certain concessions, would draw in huge funds, into the government coffers. Also, many big landlords with substantially high incomes from agriculture are taking undue advantage of this benefit. So, both arguments II and III hold strong
Enter details here