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 India immediately stop digging coal from its mines?
Arguments:
1. Yes. The present stock of coal will not last long if we continue mining at the present rate.
2. No. We do not have alternate energy source of sufficient quantity.
3. No. This will put millions of people at a disadvantage and their lives will get adversely affected and also the industry.
Answer: B
Though the reserves of coal are limited, yet stopping its use till alternate sources of energy have been discovered, is no solution to conserve it. So, I is not strong. It is true that we haven't till date found a renewable source of energy which is available in plenty and can substitute coal. So, II holds strong. Further, stopping coal mining would surely throw the engaged workers out of employment. So, III also holds strong.
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 there be a complete ban on manufacture and use of firecrackers?
Arguments:
1. No. This will render thousands of workers jobless.
2. Yes. The firecracker manufacturers use child labour to a large extent.
3. Yes. This will be a concrete step to reduce noise and air pollution.
4. No. Use of firecrackers makes certain special occasions more lively and joyful.
Answer: B
Clearly, banning a product would surely render jobless the large number of workers involved in manufacturing it. Besides, firecrackers on burning produce explosive sounds and immense poisonous fumes, which cause both air and noise pollution. So, both arguments I and HI hold. However, to stop child labour, it is not necessary to close down the industry but strict laws against child abuse should be enforced and legal actions taken. Similarly, there are many other ways to make parties boisterous and special events enjoyable. Hence, II as well as IV does not hold strong.
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 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 all the profit making public sector units be sold to private companies?
Arguments:
1. Yes. This will help the government to augment its resources for implementing the development programmes.
2. No. The private companies will not be able to run these units effectively.
3. Yes. There will be a significant improvement in the quality of services.
4. No. There would not be job security for the employees at all the levels.
Answer: C
The government cannot sell off public sector units just to pool up funds for development. Besides, if it does so, these units shall be handed over to private companies which are fully equipped to run these units effectively. So, neither I nor II holds strong. Privatization shall surely ensure better services, but private companies adopt hire and fire policy and they are free to terminate the services of any employee as and when they wish to. Thus, both III and IV hold strong.
Enter details here
Statement: Should India acquire/manufacture the latest nuclear weapons?
Arguments:
1. Yes. The enemies of India are improving their weapons continuously and it becomes imperative to protect the sovereignty and integrity of the country.
2. No. Instead the money should be diverted to development activities.
3. No. The international community will isolate Indians and this will bring a setback to Indian economy.
4. No. It will be against our policy of maintaining world peace.
Answer: A
Clearly, in the blind race for attaining nuclear powers, acquiring nuclear weapons is an inevitability to protect the country from the threat of nuclear powers. So, argument I holds strong. Also, defence of the country is as important as internal development. So, II does not hold. Argument III seems to be vague. Also, India intends to acquire nuclear weapons for self-defence and not aggression. So, argument IV also does not hold
Enter details here
Statement: Should education be made compulsory for all children up to the age of 14?
Arguments:
1. Yes. This will help to eradicate the system of forced employment of these children.
2. Yes. This is an effective way to make the entire population educated.
3. No. We do not have adequate infrastructure to educate the entire population.
4. Yes. This would increase the standard of living.
Answer: D
Clearly, today's children are to make up future citizens of the country and so it is absolutely essential to make them learned, more responsible, more innovative and self-dependent by imparting them education. So, argument II holds strong while I and IV do not. Besides, the goal of literacy cannot be denied for want of infrastructure. So, argument III also does not hold
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